Saludar

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a greeting (no mutation), and the description adds nothing that contradicts it. Beyond that, it discloses almost no behavioral context (return format, language handling) — acceptable only because the operation is trivial and annotations already cover safety.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the testing hint second. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence is meta-commentary rather than operational guidance.

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 trivial two-parameter read-only greeting with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description is sufficient to call it correctly. Only the language parameter's behavior is left entirely to the schema.

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%, so both parameters (nombre, idioma with an enum) are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions greeting by name but says nothing about the idioma parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 verb and resource: greet a person by their name. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools, which list apps, open apps, and report time, but it doesn't explicitly name them as alternatives.

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?

"Útil para probar que el MCP funciona" gives an implied usage context (testing/health check), but there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use rules, and no reference to any sibling tool as an alternative.

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