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 two returned facts (service state, OCR availability), which is the key behavioral signal for a probe, but says nothing about authentication, caching, latency, or the shape/values of the returned status.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the two pieces of information it returns are stated immediately. It is appropriately sized for a no-argument probe, though it is arguably terse enough that one more clause about return format would not have hurt.

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 must convey what comes back, and it does name both returned values (service status, OCR availability). For a zero-parameter read-only probe this is close to sufficient, with only the concrete status values/format unspecified.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no arguments whose semantics could be clarified, and the description does not waste words pretending otherwise.

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?

'Devuelve el estado del servicio y si el OCR está disponible' names a specific verb (devuelve) and resource (estado del servicio) plus the OCR availability flag. It is clearly a health/probe tool, distinct from the document-processing siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the natural precondition use case (verifying OCR availability before calling the 'ocr' sibling). The purpose of a status probe makes usage largely self-evident, so this is implied rather than stated.

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