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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds that it provides source resolutions, checks aftosa barrier with province input, and clarifies it only informs requirements without emission, adding value beyond 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?

Two sentences in Spanish, concise yet comprehensive. Information is front-loaded with main purpose, followed by conditional behavior and exclusions. No wasteful 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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (list of requirements with source resolutions, plus aftosa barrier info) and what it does not do, making it complete for a read-only informational tool.

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 descriptions are clear. The description adds meaning by explaining that province parameters trigger aftosa barrier crossing check, which is not evident from schema alone.

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 the tool provides sanitary requirements for moving bovine livestock, listing specific items (RENSPA, DT-e, aftosa, etc.) and distinguishing itself from siblings by explicitly stating it does not emit DT-e.

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 tells when to use (to get movement requirements) and explicitly says what it does not do (emit DT-e), pointing to SIGSA as alternative. However, it does not directly compare to other sanidad siblings like sanidad_calendario_aftosa.

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