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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation, the description adds crucial behavioral details: it is the only tool that consumes model, it does not send anything ('no envía nada'), it provides no prices except published ones, and it responds with links to aguassb.com. These are meaningful disclosures not present in annotations. No contradiction found.

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 description is a single dense paragraph, but it is front-loaded with the critical 'ÚLTIMO RECURSO' warning, then lists the alternative tool and its inputs, then describes the tool's function and constraints. While not overly concise, every sentence adds necessary context for a tool that is a fallback, justifying the length. The structure could benefit from bullet points but remains readable and logically ordered.

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?

Given the tool has only 2 parameters, no output schema, and sits among 4 siblings, the description is remarkably complete. It covers when to use, what it does, what it returns (links to published content), constraints (no sending, no prices), and the domain of expertise. An agent has all the information needed to invoke it correctly and route to it appropriately.

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% for both parameters (pregunta and idioma) with clear descriptions. The description adds context about the types of water-related questions (consumo, residual, reutilizacion, aridos) but this guides the content of 'pregunta' rather than clarifying the parameter syntax or constraints. Since the schema already documents the parameters fully, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 queries Artemisia, the AI assistant of Aguas SB, and returns content published on aguassb.com. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling obtener_conocimiento by being the last-resort tool that consumes model. The verb 'consultar' and resource 'Artemisia' are specific, and the scope (water treatment domains) is enumerated.

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?

Usage is explicitly gated: it is the LAST RESORT, to be used only after calling obtener_conocimiento with specific water-type categories, and only when those documents fail or for English responses. It also notes it handles English questions. This is clear when/when-not guidance with named alternatives.

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