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

Adds real behavioral detail beyond the annotations: broken JSON is repaired rather than rejected, output is deterministic, and hard limits are disclosed (64 KB input, 1 s per call, 1 MB result). Some of the 'sin red / sin estado / solo lectura' phrasing restates openWorldHint=false, readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which the annotations already carry, so it is not purely additive.

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?

Strongly front-loaded and labeled (Cuándo / No para / Efectos secundarios / Determinista / Límites), so an agent can scan it quickly. It loses a point for being bilingual-duplicated: the same content appears in Spanish and again as an EN block that is then re-embedded verbatim in the schema description.

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?

Given a 2-parameter tool with an output schema, four annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers everything an agent needs: accepted inputs, produced outputs, scope exclusions, side effects, determinism and size/time limits. Nothing material is left to inference.

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% and the schema already documents 'input' (any JSON value, string or object) and the 'idioma' enum with its auto-detect default. The description restates the same facts (texto/JSON roto se repara, es/en/pt) without adding format or syntax guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 (traducir/recibe...devuelve) and resource (descripciones de agentes/API entre protocolos), and enumerates the exact input formats (Agent Card A2A, server.json/tools MCP, OpenAPI/Swagger, x402, llms.txt, texto) and the four outputs produced. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling, tool-definition-convert, so an agent can route correctly without opening the 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?

Contains an explicit 'Cuándo:' clause naming the triggering condition (the description exists in one protocol and is needed in the others) and a 'No para:' exclusion that names the alternative tool and its scope. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered with no inference required.

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