Source Record: ready to record?

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail by listing the exact checks performed and the possible return verdicts ('ready', 'ready_with_warnings', 'not_ready'). It does not explain warning severity or required permissions, but the added diagnostic scope is substantial.

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 front-loaded with the check's purpose, then lists the validation areas, the return verdict, and the read-only trait. It is dense but mostly earns its length. Minor waste comes from the redundant Spanish question and the trailing 'Read-only', which restates the annotation.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return value, and it does by naming the three verdict outcomes. It also lists the checked configuration areas thoroughly. It stops short of explaining how an agent should act on warnings or failures, but for a diagnostic check the coverage is strong.

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 zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Under the rubric, zero parameters sets the baseline at 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 ('Finds', 'checks') and resource ('Source Record filter', record settings), and enumerates the exact properties being validated. It is clearly distinguishable from generic get/list siblings because it performs a pre-record readiness check rather than simply retrieving settings.

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 title and opening '¿Listo para grabar?' imply a pre-recording check, so usage is implied. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this tool, when not to, or how it differs from alternatives such as check_irl or start_record.

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