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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is mostly covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the argument-less call returns a 14-item list while a topic argument returns structured implementation guidance (sections and practices). No auth/rate-limit notes, but for an informational read tool 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?

The purpose and mode behavior are front-loaded, followed by the routing rule to the mandatory-sanitary siblings. A bilingual EN gloss is appended for accessibility; it is mildly redundant but earns its place for a Spanish-named resource. Dense but no filler sentences.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-shape burden; it does so at a reasonable level ('cómo implementarlo (secciones y prácticas)' vs. a 14-topic list). Combined with the sibling routing and mode description, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though exact response fields are not enumerated.

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 schema already documents the 'tema' slug with examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical meaning on top: omitting the argument enumerates all 14 topics, while supplying one returns how to implement it (sections and practices), and it even lists the 14 valid topic names, which is richer than the schema.

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 states a specific resource (Buenas Prácticas Ganaderas for beef cattle production, sourced from the 2019 Red BPA guide) and the two operating modes: no argument lists the 14 topics, with an argument returns implementation sections and practices. It also names the sibling tools it is NOT (animal_health_plan / livestock_movement_rules), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any 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 gives an explicit when-to-use/when-not rule: these practices are voluntary, and for mandatory ('OBLIGATORIO') sanitary matters the agent should use animal_health_plan or livestock_movement_rules instead. The alternative tools are named alongside the condition that selects them, leaving nothing to inference.

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