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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the description's 'no paga, escribe' largely restates that safety profile. It does add that the tool returns 'estado y recibo' and never fabricates execution, but says nothing about why idempotentHint is false (i.e., that repeated calls may yield different receipts) or about rate limits and auth.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The brevity borders on under-specification rather than verbosity, but nothing in the text is wasted.

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 tool with five parameters including two nested objects and non-idempotent semantics, the definition leaves the parameter meanings and the sibling-selection rules unexplained. An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the input side and routing guidance are incomplete.

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?

With 5 parameters, nested objects, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only place meaning could be added, yet it never mentions contexto, permisos, pago_x402, or confirmacion_token. The presence of payment-permission and x402 token fields alongside 'no paga' is left entirely unexplained.

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 names two concrete actions (verifying an MCP and consulting real capabilities) but does not differentiate this tool from the closely overlapping siblings bursia_verify_mcp, discover_capabilities, and capability_triage. An agent reading it cannot tell which of those four to select for a given request.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'Pide verificar un MCP o consultar capacidades reales'. No when-not conditions, prerequisites, or explicit alternatives are given, which is a real gap in a family of thirteen sibling tools spanning verification, discovery, triage, and payment.

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