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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered structurally. The description adds real context beyond that: the tool is a one-shot onboarding trigger, it returns guidance instead of re-drawing on subsequent calls (idempotency), and its interaction model is tap-based. It stops short of describing the return payload shape in any detail, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the purpose before the invocation rule. Nearly every clause earns its place, though the parenthetical 'las instrucciones del servidor lo dicen' is redundant rationale 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?

No output schema exists, and the description supplies the key return behavior an agent needs (guidance on where to proceed if already run). For a zero-required-parameter onboarding tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, this covers what is needed; only the exact return format remains implicit.

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% and both parameters (idioma, workspace_id) are already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior — no mention of language selection, workspace resolution, or the default 'es' behavior — so it neither helps nor harms.

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 ('Dibuja la bienvenida de una cuenta NUEVA') and details the artifact it produces: a card with three concrete workspace-setup questions, answered by tapping rather than writing. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like configurar_workspace, which would be the tool that actually persists settings.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger and ordering constraint: call it ONCE, before anything else, when the Secondbrain is empty, with the rationale that server instructions say so. It also names the when-not condition ('si ya se hizo, devuelve por dónde seguir y no dibuja el formulario'), so the agent knows the outcome of a redundant call.

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