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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds meaningful context: it returns both the dream-table meaning and recent cabezas results, and warns that this is cultural tradition rather than a prediction. That caveat is genuinely useful behavioral framing not present in annotations.

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?

Front-loads the usage trigger and examples, then states the return and the cultural caveat; every clause earns its place. It is a single dense paragraph, slightly long but not padded.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so adequately: it names the meaning source and the cabezas output. It stops short of describing structure or edge cases (e.g., invalid numbers), but nothing critical to calling the tool 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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents the 00-99 range and the last-two-digits behavior. The description only restates the 00-99 range, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns the quiniela dream-table meaning for a number 00-99 plus its latest cabezas appearances. The scope (cultural tradition, not a prediction) further distinguishes it from predictive or results-oriented siblings like get_statistics or get_results.

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?

Explicitly triggers on user intent with three concrete example phrasings ('¿qué significa el 48?', 'el 23 en la quiniela', 'soñé con un perro'), which is strong routing guidance. It does not, however, name or exclude alternatives such as check_number or get_cabezas, so the agent must infer those boundaries.

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