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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It richly defines the KPI output semantics (people vs submissions vs views, conversion_rate formula and null case, views_measured flag), but it says nothing about pagination behavior, result limits, ordering, or any permission/rate constraints — and the existence of a 'limit' parameter implies pagination that goes unaddressed.

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 purpose is front-loaded and each subsequent sentence defines a distinct KPI, so the length is largely earned given the absence of an output schema. It is a dense single block with no structural breaks, but there is little redundant filler.

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, the description correctly compensates by explaining what each returned metric means and how conversion_rate is derived. It is strong on return-value semantics but incomplete on operational behavior (pagination, ordering, default result count) for a list tool.

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%, so both parameters (limit and is_active) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about either parameter, so the baseline 3 for fully-covered schemas applies.

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 opening sentence 'Lista los formularios con sus KPIs' gives a specific verb (list) and resource (forms) plus the distinguishing detail that KPIs are included, which separates it from the singular get_form sibling. It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the alternative form-reading tools.

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 contains no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-routing guidance. It never mentions get_form or explains the conditions under which a caller should list forms rather than fetch one, leaving usage entirely to inference from the tool name.

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