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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns a greeting, without mentioning any traits like whether it's read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or handles errors. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic function.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Spanish: 'Devuelve un saludo básico.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more specific (e.g., clarifying 'basic'), but overall, it is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, or usage context. For such a simple tool, this might be sufficient, but it doesn't provide a complete picture, especially without annotations or output schema to fill in gaps.

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 has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids mentioning any. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as it doesn't mislead or omit necessary information.

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 'Devuelve un saludo básico' (Returns a basic greeting) states the tool's purpose in Spanish, which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb 'returns' and the resource 'a basic greeting', but lacks details about what constitutes 'basic' or the format of the greeting. Since there are no sibling tools, differentiation is not required, but the purpose remains somewhat general.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, such as in what contexts or scenarios it is appropriate. There are no alternatives mentioned, and with no sibling tools, this is less critical, but it still lacks any usage context or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction.

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