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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world behavior, but the description adds useful operational details: deterministic output, no stored state, no network access, and concrete limits of 64 KB input, 1 s per call, and 1 MB result. These are real behavioral traits beyond the structured annotations.

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 content is front-loaded and organized with clear labels such as 'Cuándo', 'No para', 'Efectos secundarios', and 'Límites'. However, the full English translation duplicates the Spanish text, which is redundant for an agent and slightly weakens conciseness.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, exclusions, side effects, determinism, and limits, while the schema fully documents parameters and an output schema exists. An agent has everything needed to call the tool correctly without missing context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is already adequate, but the description adds meaningful comparison semantics: case and accent insensitivity, ñ remaining distinct from n, Spanish collation, and optional punctuation/space ignoring. It does not add much individual guidance for parameters a and b beyond the schema, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 specific verb and resource: it compares two Spanish texts, ignores case and accents while keeping ñ distinct from n, and also returns sort order. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling es-stress by saying it is not for analyzing a single word.

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 an explicit 'Cuándo' condition for using Spanish collation rules and a 'No para' exclusion that names the sibling tool es-stress. This leaves little ambiguity about when to select this tool versus that alternative.

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