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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context beyond them: "Determinista, sin modelo de lenguaje" tells the agent output is a fixed document set, not generated text, and "Material público revisado" signals vetted content. "Solo consulta" merely restates readOnlyHint, but the two added facts earn a 4.

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 most important fact (what it returns) is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the rest is short declarative clauses. There is minor redundancy—"Solo consulta" duplicates readOnlyHint—but no wasted sentences.

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 read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers behavior (deterministic, no LLM, reviewed public material) and scope. The handling of a non-matching filtro is left to the schema, which documents it, so nothing essential is missing.

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 67%, with the filtro and incluir_metodo parameters well documented in the schema, while tipo_de_agua's enum values carry no per-value description. The description references "un tipo de agua" but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for adequate schema coverage 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 ("Devuelve") and resource ("documentos públicos de Aguas SB sobre un tipo de agua") and enumerates the content it covers (qué mide cada parámetro, qué decide el tratamiento, cómo trabaja la empresa, qué datos hacen falta). This makes the tool's scope clear, but it does not differentiate itself from the semantically close sibling consultar_aguas_sb, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

"Útil para responder preguntas generales sobre ese tipo de agua" implies when the tool is appropriate, but there are no explicit when-not conditions and no named alternatives among the siblings (consultar_aguas_sb, orientar_caso_agua, etc.). Usage is only implied rather than routed.

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