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 useful non-annotation context: it does not emit the DT-e, that requires a SIGSA fiscal key (ARCA), and it returns each requirement with its source resolution. That said, it does not describe response shape or enumeration format, so the added behavioral value is moderate.

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 core purpose and requirement list, then the conditional behavior, then the boundary note and an English gloss. Every sentence earns its place, though the [EN] translation is mild redundancy that slightly dilutes density.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and largely does so: it states it reports the required documents/conditions with each one's source resolution ('con la resolución fuente de cada uno'). For a read-only lookup tool this is sufficient, missing only minor detail on output structure.

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 both params are optional, giving a baseline of 3, but the description goes further by explaining what passing origin/destination actually does — it determines whether the movement crosses the aftosa vaccination barrier — adding semantics beyond the schema's bare '(opcional)'.

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: it enumerates the SENASA sanitary requirements (RENSPA, DT-e, aftosa, brucelosis serology, tick barrier, habilitated transport) for moving cattle between Argentine provinces/regions. It distinguishes itself from siblings by clarifying it informs requirements rather than emitting documents, unlike dte_lookup/renspa_lookup. An agent can identify its scope without opening the 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?

Explains the conditional behavior (passing origin/destination provinces triggers a barrier-crossing determination) and draws a clear boundary against the DT-e issuance process (SIGSA/ARCA), telling the agent what this tool will NOT do. It lacks an explicit 'use X instead' pointer to the dte_lookup sibling, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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