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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing safety. The description adds behavioral context: it explains that the tool returns a list of topics without arguments, and provides implementation details with a topic argument. It also emphasizes the voluntary nature, which is not captured in annotations.

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 concise: four sentences covering purpose, behavior, and guidelines. It is front-loaded with the core function, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary text.

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?

Given the tool has one optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations handle safety, the description fully covers the tool's behavior: listing topics vs. returning implementation, and differentiating from mandatory alternatives. An agent can confidently select and invoke the tool based on this description.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains the behavior with and without the 'tema' parameter, gives concrete examples of valid slugs (e.g., 'salud-animal', 'manejo-rodeo', 'agua'), and clarifies the output format. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description enhances usability.

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 clearly states that the tool provides 'Buenas Prácticas Ganaderas (BPG)' for beef cattle, summarizing the Red BPA (2019) guide. It specifies two modes: listing 14 topics when no argument is given, and returning implementation details when a topic is provided. This differentiates it from sibling tools like sanidad_plan and sanidad_requisitos_movimiento, which are for mandatory health procedures.

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 description explicitly states when to use the tool (voluntary practices) and when not to use it (for mandatory health requirements), directing the agent to 'sanidad_plan / sanidad_requisitos_movimiento' instead. This provides clear guidance on tool selection.

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