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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description reinforces with 'Solo consulta; no envía nada'. It adds genuinely new behavioral context: it is the only LLM-backed tool (with implied cost/latency) and it returns a link to the source page, which is distinct from the 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose before the parenthetical topic list, and the routing rule and read-only note come last. The long domain enumeration is the only mild verbosity, but it is arguably useful for matching questions to this tool.

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?

For a Q&A tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, routing, language support, and the source-link return element, which is enough for correct invocation. It stops short of describing answer length, latency, or handling when nothing is published, but the essentials are present.

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 description coverage is 100% – both 'pregunta' and 'idioma' are documented in the schema, including the default-language behavior and enum. The description only echoes the language option ('también en inglés') without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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: answers a free-form question using an LLM over Aguas SB's published material, and explicitly flags itself as the only model-backed tool. The topic enumeration (potabilización, depuración, reutilización, control de cloro/pH, etc.) makes scope concrete enough to distinguish it from other siblings at a glance.

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 an explicit when-to-use rule ('útil cuando los documentos de obtener_conocimiento no cubren la pregunta o se pide una respuesta redactada') naming the alternative tool and the condition that selects it, plus a language qualifier ('también en inglés'). Nothing is left to inference.

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