Alertas nuevas (modo gateway)

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

Annotations only give readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint; the description adds substantial context beyond them: ~10s per API query, the possibility that no alerts fit in one call and the 'revision' field reporting that, the 30-minute re-offer of unconfirmed alerts, the per-5-minute API cost of reviewing, and an explicit prompt-injection warning to treat buyer-written names as data. Rich disclosure not derivable from structured fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and most sentences carry non-redundant operational detail (timing, batch_id, re-offer window). It is dense and long for a one-parameter tool, but nearly every sentence earns its place; minor tightening possible.

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 still explains the return contract (lote_id, and 'revision' indicating whether a review window was exhausted) and covers reliability, timing, cost, and safety caveats. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 single 'max' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage, range and default stated), so the description need not add syntax. It adds no further parameter meaning, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('entrega las alertas aún no confirmadas, con un lote_id') scoped to the always-on gateway mode, immediately distinguishing this from interactive siblings. The follow-up relationship to confirmar_alertas is named, so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('para un gateway siempre encendido'), the recommended division of labor (daemon reads, this tool only delivers its queue), the fallback when nobody is watching, and the required next step (confirmar_alertas with that lote_id). It also states what to do when a call times out (re-call it).

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