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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and adds some useful behavioral detail: it is free, returns metadata only, and excludes hints, answers, id, and link. However, it does not state read-only safety, auth requirements, rate limits, or the crossword error behavior documented in the schema.

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 a single tightly packed sentence that front-loads the key scope claim ('Solo metadatos del acróstico de hoy') and then lists exclusions. Every phrase earns its place with zero filler.

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 simple metadata preview tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently lists the returned fields and exclusions. It leaves out when-to-use guidance and cross-parameter error behavior, but those gaps are minor given the tool's low complexity and the schema's parameter coverage.

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 the schema already documents both parameters, including the enum and the crossword error. The description does not add parameter syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool returns only metadata for today's acrostic (title, level, counts, rarity) and explicitly excludes hints, answers, id, and link. This distinguishes it by content scope from likely fuller or solved sibling tools, though it does not name them directly.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative tools are named. The phrase 'Solo metadatos... sin pistas, sin respuestas' implies the tool is appropriate when only preview metadata is needed, but the agent must infer that from the scope.

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