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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so 'Read-only, free' is largely redundant. The genuinely additive detail is the disclosure of both candidate paths, which tells the agent what is actually probed; however, nothing is said about what happens on 404/timeout or how the result is reported.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the path detail in parentheses where it belongs. No 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 one-parameter read-only probe with annotations covering the safety profile, this is nearly sufficient; the only real gap is that with no output schema the description gives no hint of what a result looks like (present/absent, status, parsed content).

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?

Single parameter at 100% schema coverage, and the schema already documents 'Domain or https URL'. The description adds no format or normalization guidance beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and a specific resource ('Directorio de agentes / agents.json'), and even names the two well-known paths probed. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like bursia_check_llms_txt or bursia_check_robots by the file it targets, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Check one agent-readiness item' implies this is a single-item check in a family that includes bursia_agent_readiness as the aggregate, but the description never says when to prefer the aggregator over this single check, nor any prerequisites (e.g., public site only).

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