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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'solo lectura, sin red, sin estado guardado' largely restates them. The genuinely additive parts are the determinism guarantee and the hard limits (64 KB input, 1 s per call, 1 MB result), which structured fields do not convey.

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 core action and organized into labelled Cuándo/No para/Efectos/Límites blocks, which is easy to scan. Points deducted because the trigger list mixes unrelated artifact types (URL, IP range, HTML, Markdown, agent-readiness file) and the full text is duplicated in Spanish and English.

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 values need no explanation; the description still covers side effects, determinism and resource limits. For a single-parameter read-only parser, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and predict the outcome.

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% and the single parameter carries its own description, examples and maxLength, so the baseline is 3. The description does add one useful constraint not in the schema — that a leading 'v' is optional — but otherwise adds little over the structured fields.

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 pair (valida y analiza) plus the exact resource (SemVer 2.0.0) and enumerates the parsed components (mayor, menor, parche, prerelease, build). This clearly separates it from sibling parsers like semver-compare or semver-satisfies.

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?

Uses explicit 'Cuándo:' and 'No para:' sections, naming the alternative tool (semver-bump) and the operation it handles instead. The when-to-use trigger list is broad but the exclusion plus named sibling removes ambiguity about routing.

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