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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context the annotations do not: when 'ambiente' is omitted the response also includes a separate muebles_de_autor collection whose items open via editor_url and have their cut list at pagina_url, and which must not be sent to construir_mueble.

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-loads what is returned, then the filter, then the workflow routing and the author-furniture caveat; every sentence carries information. It is somewhat dense and the trailing parenthetical keyword list is marginally redundant, but there is no filler.

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 need not be restated, and the description still covers the non-obvious pieces: the optional filter's effect, the extra author collection, and the correct downstream tool. An agent has everything needed to call it and route the result.

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%, so the enum values themselves are already documented (baseline 3). The description goes beyond by explaining the purpose of the filter ('para descubrir qué hay por espacio') and, more importantly, the side effect of omitting it (extra muebles_de_autor block), which the schema does not convey.

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 ('Lista los presets de muebles armables de Mueblito') and enumerates the returned fields (id, nombre, tipo, medidas en mm, descripción, editor_url). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like buscar_catalogo or ver_mueble because it is the entry point that yields the id needed downstream.

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?

Gives explicit routing: 'Llamala para encontrar el id de un mueble; después construilo con construir_mueble (recomendado) o cotizá/mostrá con ese id.' It also names an exclusion — muebles_de_autor entries 'no se construyen con construir_mueble' — so the agent knows when NOT to chain into the builder.

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