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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the command's 30-minute lifetime, that it runs until self-terminating, that it should be backgrounded, and that it costs no credits — all useful operational facts an agent needs. It does not cover behavior on repeated invocations or what happens if the local port is unreachable.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the return value, then execution guidance, then the cost note. No sentence is filler and no important detail is buried.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains what is returned (a runnable command) and how to use it. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only edge cases like re-invocation are unaddressed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so `puerto`'s meaning and range and `idioma`'s enum values are already fully documented in the schema. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it adds nothing beyond the structured fields; the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a precise verb and resource: it returns the shell command that opens a temporary tunnel to a local server. It also ties the tool to its downstream purpose (measuring the local version with `medir`), so an agent can distinguish it from `medir` and `estado` without opening any schema.

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?

It gives clear operational context: run the returned command in the background, it stays alive until it closes on its own 30 minutes later, and it consumes no credits. It never states when NOT to use this tool or how to choose between it and the sibling tools, so it stops short of explicit routing guidance.

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