my_avisos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not state that the operation is read-only, that skip/take control pagination, what the result set looks like, or any auth requirements. Only the implicit 'fetch notices' framing suggests a safe read.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, which is good. But its brevity is under-specification rather than economy: the scope qualifier is present while the operation, pagination, and return shape are all absent. Efficient, but too thin to be called well-structured for a 3-parameter 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?

With zero annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters, the description should be doing the heavy lifting and instead does almost none. An agent cannot determine the operation type, paging behavior, or result format from this definition alone.

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% across three parameters. The description adds meaning only for 'email' (optional override of the saved account) and says nothing about 'skip' or 'take', whose pagination semantics are left entirely undefined. Two of three parameters remain opaque to the agent.

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 conveys that the tool returns 'avisos' (notices) scoped to the saved email account or an explicitly supplied one, which is more than a bare restatement of the name. However, it uses a noun phrase with no verb, so an agent must infer that this is a retrieval/list operation rather than a creation or mutation. Sibling 'create_aviso' implies this is the read counterpart, but the description never says so.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_aviso or create_aviso_from_photo. The parenthetical '(o el indicado)' hints that an email can be supplied instead of the default account, but that is parameter behavior, not usage guidance. An agent gets no routing signal.

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