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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description redundantly restates 'sin red, sin estado guardado'. It still adds value beyond the annotations with hard operational limits (64 KB input, 1 s per call, 1 MB result) that an agent cannot infer from the structured fields. It loses a point for spending sentences repeating annotation content rather than adding new behavior detail (e.g. what happens at the size limit).

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then when/not-for, side effects, determinism, and limits in a scannable order. However, the entire content is duplicated verbatim in Spanish and English, roughly doubling length without adding information for an agent that reads either language.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and the description covers everything else an agent needs: what it does, when, the excluded alternative, safety, determinism, and size/time limits. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 fully documents 'value' and 'descending'; baseline 3 applies. The description adds real meaning about the sort key (UTF-16 code units vs. locale-aware), but it never mentions the 'descending' parameter and the 'locale-aware' option it advertises has no corresponding schema parameter, which slightly muddies rather than clarifies parameter behavior.

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+resource ('Ordena recursivamente las claves de los objetos JSON') with the crucial scope qualifier that array order is preserved. It also names the mechanism (UTF-16 code-unit ordering) and explicitly separates itself from json-canonicalize, so an agent can distinguish it from json-pretty, json-minify, and the canonicalize sibling 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?

Explicit 'Cuándo' clause gives the trigger condition (transform, compare, or exactly check structured data) and an explicit 'No para' clause names the alternative (RFC 8785 canonicalization → json-canonicalize). This is the exact when/when-not/alternative shape the dimension asks for.

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