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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return shape (veredicto sano/a_vigilar/en_riesgo + acciones priorizadas), the definitive-vs-temporal bounce distinction, and threshold values. It does not state auth/permission requirements or the read-only nature of the tool, but for a zero-param diagnostic the operational semantics are well covered.

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-loads scope and metrics, then judgment details, then the call-to-action. Dense but every clause earns its place; slightly heavy on parenthetical detail (bounce_rate_temporal, threshold percentages) that could be trimmed.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description does the work of explaining the return verdict, the prioritized actions, and the metric definitions. Complete enough to invoke and interpret. Missing only ancillary details such as data freshness beyond the 28-day window or whether the call is read-only.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds real semantic value by defining the metric denominators (rebotes y quejas sobre ENVIADOS; open_rate sobre ENTREGADOS) and the healthy thresholds (<2 %, <0,1 %), which is exactly the meaning an agent needs to interpret the output.

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 ('Diagnóstico de entregabilidad de la cuenta') with explicit scope (últimos 28 días) and enumerates exactly what is measured: rebotes, quejas, aperturas, salud del dominio (DNS). Distinguishable from sibling account_stats, which it explicitly references for the open_rate basis.

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?

Ends with an explicit trigger: 'Úsalo antes de un envío grande o si los correos no llegan.' It also clarifies the relationship to account_stats, so the agent can tell which tool computes what.

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