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 describes the tool as listing actions (read-only behavior) and covers the what/on-what/when aspects. However, it does not mention authentication, scope, or rate limits; for a simple read tool, this is adequate.

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 description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key purpose ('Transparencia...') and covers all essential information with zero wasted words.

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 the tool has only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose, scope, and output fields ('qué se hizo, sobre qué y cuándo'), providing sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.

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% for the single parameter 'limit'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's '1-100, default 50.' Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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 clearly states the tool lists account actions originated by an agent/AI, specifying sources (Atelier chat, agent API, A2A) and the purpose ('qué se hizo, sobre qué y cuándo'). The verb 'lista' and resource 'acciones de la cuenta originadas por un agente/IA' are specific and unambiguous.

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 description explicitly states the use case ('Para auditar lo que un agente ejecutó'), providing clear context. While no explicit alternatives or exclusions are given, the sibling tools are all different (campaigns, subscribers, etc.), so differentiation is inherent.

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