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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new context by clarifying this is purely informational and does not emit or query a real DT-e (that requires the ARCA fiscal key), which prevents an agent from expecting a live lookup. It doesn't discuss return shape, but with annotations present this is solid.

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 scope, then the explicit exclusion, then the sibling routing, with a brief EN gloss. Dense but every clause adds routing or scope value; the bilingual restatement is slight padding but harmless.

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 and no parameters, so the description carries the load and does it well for a reference tool, enumerating the requirement categories it covers (RENSPA, ARCA fiscal key, vaccination) and its chaining to sanitary rules. Sufficient for an agent 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies.

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 resource (DT-e / número de tropa) and its scope: explaining what it is, the requirements to issue it, and how it chains to sanitary requirements. It explicitly declares what it does NOT do ('NO emite ni consulta un DT-e real') and names the sibling it is not, so an agent can separate it from livestock_movement_rules without opening schemas.

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?

Names the alternative explicitly ('Para el detalle de requisitos por movimiento usá livestock_movement_rules') and gives the exclusions (reference only; the real DT-e lives behind ARCA fiscal key in SIGSA). The when-to-use/when-not-to-use split is fully spelled out.

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