Probar los canales de aviso

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

Annotations flag a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world operation, and the description reinforces this by stating it actually sends messages and reports delivery per channel. It adds a useful negative boundary (does not query the Mercado Público API) that annotations alone cannot convey, though it stops short of describing rate limits or failure behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then the constraint on destinations, then a disambiguating negative boundary. Nothing is wasted and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic with no output schema, the description covers inputs, side effects, and delivery reporting adequately. It could say more about what the return payload looks like, but the essential behavior is captured.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description proactively explains why: destinations come from configuration (.env or extension fields) and conectar_telegram, and the tool intentionally accepts no destination argument.

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: it sends a test message through each configured channel and reports which one arrived. It also delineates scope by naming the sibling (conectar_telegram) that owns destination configuration, so an agent can distinguish it from other setup tools 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?

It implies the use case (verifying that configured notification channels actually deliver) and clarifies the relationship to conectar_telegram as the prerequisite for setting destinations. No explicit 'use this when / don't use when' clause, but the context is clear enough to route correctly.

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