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 mentions pay-per-use pricing. It discloses no behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens to the input.

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 short, but the single sentence is filled with provenance and pricing details that are irrelevant to correct invocation. It omits the core purpose entirely, making this under-specification rather than concise communication.

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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description still fails to provide essential context such as what input should contain or what the tool returns. It is incomplete to the point of being unusable for correct selection or invocation.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single 'input' parameter, even though the description is only the tautological 'entrada'. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies, but there is no semantic enrichment.

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 only says 'Auto-created from real demand (77 requests) [x402: 0.02 USDC on Base, pay-per-use]'. It never states that the tool reviews code or describes any action or resource. The name 'revisar-codigo' implies it, but the description itself provides no purpose and fails to differentiate it from siblings like code-review or revisar-seguridad.

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, what problem it solves, or how it compares to alternatives. An agent cannot determine whether to pick revisar-codigo over code-review, code-review-security, or analizar-sintaxis.

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