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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cardinality constraint (2–5 domains) and the output ordering (worst to best), which is useful behavior. However it does not say what dimensions are compared, whether any permissions/quota apply, or how long a comparison takes.

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?

Very compact and front-loaded: the core action and ordering are in the first sentence, and the Args block gives the only needed format hint. The docstring-style Args header is slightly redundant but overall the text earns its place.

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 and no annotations, the description should describe the return shape more fully. It conveys the ranking direction but not what the ranking is based on or what each result entry contains, leaving an agent partially informed for a non-trivial comparison 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 0% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate. It does add the essential format ('lista separada por comas') and a concrete example ('uno.pe,dos.pe'), but supplies no detail on domain validation, TLD handling, or duplicates.

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?

Clear specific verb+resource: it compares 2–5 domains and ranks them worst-to-best. This distinguishes it from the auditar_* siblings that audit a single domain/aspect and from captura/estado. It stops short of naming the siblings explicitly, but the distinct purpose is unmistakable.

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?

Usage is only implied: it must be used when comparing multiple domains, in contrast to the single-domain auditing tools. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance (e.g. whether to audit first, or which tool to use for a single domain).

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