Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but it only says the tool summarizes text and costs 0.003 USDC. It does not disclose whether results are returned in a particular format, length, language, or what side effects or requirements exist.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely lean: action first, then input mapping, then pricing. Every element earns its place and nothing is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter tool the basics are present, but there is no output description and no mention of how this differs from sibling summarization tools. The cost is a useful addition, yet the overall context is insufficient for an agent deciding among many similar options.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema merely calls the parameter 'service input', while the description maps it concretely: 'input=texto a resumir'. This adds real semantic meaning and makes the parameter actionable, justifying a score above the 3 baseline for full schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Resume un texto', a specific verb and resource: it summarizes a supplied text. It is clear, but it does not differentiate itself from the many summarize/resumir/destilar siblings, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as quick-summary, summarize, resumir-documento, or destilar. The description only states the input format and price, leaving selection entirely to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.