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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results come back 'with context and last month with production', which is genuine extra behavioral context, but it says nothing about matching semantics (partial vs exact, case, accent handling) or result limits.

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 compact sentences plus a concrete example, with the core transformation front-loaded and no filler. The example's Spanish keys are terse but directly actionable.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be detailed, and the tool is a safe read. Still, gaps remain for an agent to call it confidently: 'max_rows' behavior, default reference month for production, and matching rules for the required 'texto' parameter.

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?

With only 33% schema coverage, the description must compensate and it partially does: the category list helps decode the Spanish 'tipo' enum (yacimiento=field, cuenca=basin, etc.), and the example shows the call shape. However 'max_rows' is never explained and the enum-to-category mapping is only inferrable, not stated.

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 clear transformation (free text → exact names) plus the explicit enumeration of entity categories, so an agent knows this is a name-resolution/lookup tool. It reads as distinguishable from siblings like get_company or query_wells, though it never names an alternative to contrast against.

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 phrase 'for filters' implies the intended workflow (resolve a loose name before using it in a filtered query), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison with sibling lookups such as get_well or rank_entities.

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