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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return shape (agente, régimen, categorías afectadas, zoonosis, source resolutions with official URLs) and the free-call default. No auth or rate-limit detail, but that is minor against the annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its contents in the first sentence, then the default behavior, then the sibling disambiguation, closing with a compact EN gloss. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the returned fields (agent, regimen, categories, zoonosis flag, source resolutions), so return expectations are set. Combined with annotations covering safety, the definition gives everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, and the single enum parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including the 'sin este arg devuelve los 4' default. The description's mention of the no-argument behavior largely repeats the schema, so it adds only marginal meaning. Baseline 3 is 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+resource: returns the ficha of a mandatory SENASA health plan for bovine diseases, and enumerates the four options (aftosa, brucelosis, tuberculosis, garrapata/tristeza). It also details what the ficha contains, so an agent understands the payload without opening anything. It distinguishes itself from livestock_movement_rules by contrasting regulatory vs operational info.

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?

Explicitly states behavior with and without the argument ('Sin argumento lista los 4 planes') and names the correct alternative for the movement use case ('para mover hacienda usá livestock_movement_rules'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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