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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only/idempotent profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it is deterministic with no language model, it is an order-of-magnitude ('orden de magnitud') estimate using rule-of-thumb ('manual') parameters, and it is explicitly not a substitute for a real design. These precision and limitation disclosures go beyond 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?

The core purpose and the output list are front-loaded in the first long sentence, with usage caveats in the closing sentences. The output enumeration is dense but each clause carries distinct information; only minor trimming is possible.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what the tool returns and flags the precision ceiling, which an agent needs to interpret results. The optional inputs (sector, destino, produccion, limite) are only loosely implied, leaving a small gap for a 7-parameter tool.

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 71% and most parameters are self-documenting via types/enums. The description only names caudal and DQO/DBO₅ in passing and adds no syntax or meaning for 'sector', 'destino', 'produccion' or 'limite_dqo_mg_l' beyond the schema, so it does little more than the structured fields already do.

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 ('cuenta... para la depuración de un vertido') and then enumerates the concrete outputs (carga diaria, habitantes equivalentes, tamaño, energía, fango, riesgos, especialista). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like orientar_caso_agua or obtener_conocimiento, which are advisory/knowledge tools rather than deterministic calculators.

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 a clear positive condition ('Útil cuando se conoce el caudal y la carga de un agua residual') and an explicit exclusion ('No es un proyecto: el diseño real se hace con analítica... y con ensayo'). It does not, however, name a specific sibling as the alternative for those out-of-scope cases, so routing remains partly inferred.

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