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

Annotations already establish readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the prerequisite that no voice footprint means no material, the redirect to how_to_in_app('mi_voz'), and the Hobby-plan gating. It doesn't describe pagination or response shape, but the added constraints are substantive.

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 main purpose is front-loaded and every clause is informative, but the sentence is sprawling and dense with nested parentheticals, which hampers quick scanning. It is adequately sized but not tightly structured.

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 compensates well by enumerating the returned content and stating the missing-data fallback and plan requirement. For a two-param read tool with annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete, missing only response-format/pagination detail.

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 the schema already documents both 'semanas' (range/default) and 'workspace_id' (scope). The description only implicitly references week-by-week numbers and the all-workspaces default, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 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 description clearly conveys that this returns a self-portrait/profile built from the user's meetings and voice footprint, enumerating the concrete payloads (portrait, weekly tone profile, week-by-week numbers, recaps). It is specific about the resource, though the phrasing is metaphorical ('el retrato de la persona') and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'get_user_profile'.

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?

It gives concrete trigger queries ('¿cómo me fue en las reuniones?', '¿en qué tengo que mejorar?', '¿cómo vengo?') plus a fallback instruction when the prerequisite (voice footprint) is missing, and notes plan gating. It stops short of naming alternative sibling tools to use instead, so it lacks an explicit when-not/alternative routing.

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