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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'sin efectos secundarios (solo lectura, sin red, sin estado guardado)' largely restates structured data. However the description adds genuinely new operational facts: hard limits of 64 KB input, 1 s per call, 1 MB result, and a determinism guarantee — real value an agent cannot read off the annotations. It stops short of saying what happens with a malformed/non-3.x document.

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?

Well front-loaded — purpose first, then when/not-for/effects/limits — and the labeled structure is easy to scan. But the content is duplicated wholesale in Spanish and English, which roughly doubles the length without adding information, and 'resultado de hasta 1 MB' is a fact the output schema could carry. Efficient in shape, wasteful in volume.

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 single-input read-only inspection tool with a full annotation set and an output schema, nothing an agent needs is missing: purpose, scope boundaries, sibling exclusion, cost/limits and determinism are all stated, and return values are covered by the output schema.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% — the schema already documents it as a required JSON object with an example. The description adds the domain constraint 'OpenAPI 3.x' and the 64 KB size ceiling, but does not clarify 3.0 vs 3.1 acceptance or whether a raw string/YAML is accepted. Baseline 3 given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (summarize an OpenAPI 3.x document) and enumerates exactly what the summary contains: title, version, servers, operations (method, path, operationId, summary), security, and lint issues. It also names the sibling it is not (onda-traducir), so an agent can separate the two without opening either 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?

An explicit 'Cuándo' clause lists the triggering situations (reading/converting/checking an agent description, tool list, OpenAPI document or protocol receipt) and an explicit 'No para' clause routes translation work to onda-traducir. This is the when/when-not/alternative pattern at full strength, even if the 'when' list is broad.

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