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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine data semantics beyond them: a rule without `reviewed_at` 'no dice nada', and `lead_time_verified: false` means the lead time is NOT verified — real interpretation guidance for a read tool. It does not discuss volume or citation format details.

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 content is front-loaded and well-structured, but it is delivered twice in full Spanish and English, which roughly doubles length for no added information. Every Spanish sentence has a verbatim English counterpart, so a significant fraction of the text is redundant.

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 explained, yet the description still names the key fields and flags the two caveats (`reviewed_at`, `lead_time_verified`) that matter for correct interpretation. The sibling relationship is covered; volume or pagination of a full catalogue return is not mentioned.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description instead spends its words on the fields the catalogue returns, which is the relevant substitute here.

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 and resource ('Devuelve el catálogo completo de trámites') and enumerates the exact content of each rule. It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling by naming `flight_requirements` and describing the relationship ('Es el conjunto sobre el que trabaja `flight_requirements`').

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?

Positions itself relative to `flight_requirements` as the catalogue that tool evaluates, and states it is 'published so it can be cited whole' — a clear hint to use this when you need the full set rather than a per-flight evaluation. No explicit when-not-to-use or exclusion, so not a 5.

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