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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description still adds real value on top: no network, no stored state, deterministic output, and hard limits (64 KB input, 1 s per call, 1 MB result). Those operational bounds are not recoverable from the annotations and directly affect how an agent should size its call.

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 core behavior is front-loaded and the exclusion is well placed, but the text is delivered twice (ES then EN) and the 'When' sentence is a long boilerplate list of irrelevant artifact types. Roughly a third of the content does not earn its place for this specific tool.

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?

With rich annotations, an output schema and full parameter coverage, the description supplies enough — behavior, encoding rules, limits, the query-build exclusion — for correct invocation. The only shortfall is the over-broad 'When' list, which could make an agent try this tool on non-query-string artifacts.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description earns more by explaining what the schema only gestures at: the leading '?' is optional, '+' decodes as space, and nested=true turns a[b]=1 / a[]=1 into objects and arrays. That is meaningful semantics beyond 'Interpret bracket notation (boolean; optional; default false)'.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource ('Convierte una cadena de consulta en un objeto') and immediately specifies the two behaviors that define it: repeated keys become arrays and bracket notation builds nested objects/arrays. It also names the sibling it is not (query-build), so an agent can distinguish the pair 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?

The exclusion and alternative are explicit ('No para: serializar un objeto como cadena de consulta (query-build)'), which is genuinely useful routing. However, the 'Cuándo' clause is boilerplate that lumps in parsing an HTTP header, token, IP range, HTML or Markdown document or agent-readiness file — inputs this tool does not handle — so the when-to-use signal is muddied rather than sharpened.

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