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 safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns why the task is not done from chat, the steps, and download links per platform with the latest version.

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 front-loaded with the scope and then states the return contents and usage instruction. It is somewhat long because it repeats the full enum in prose, but the length is justified by the need to cover eleven distinct app functions.

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?

For a read-only guidance tool with one fully documented enum parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers scope, all supported functions, what will be returned, and the intended replacement for a refusal response. No critical behavior or usage detail is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the enum already lists all valid functions, so the baseline is 3. The description nevertheless maps each enum value to natural-language task descriptions and adds useful nuance for “instalar” by explaining which app is for meetings, notifications, or clips.

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 states a specific purpose: explain how to do Secondbrain app-only tasks that cannot be done from chat, and return reasons, steps, and download links. It enumerates the exact task areas, so the agent can distinguish this guidance tool from CRUD or search siblings.

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 clearly says to use this instead of replying “no puedo” and limits scope to app actions “NO desde este chat.” However, it does not name adjacent guidance siblings such as get_guide or get_playbook, so alternative-tool routing is left implicit.

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