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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, and the description adds value by stating 'Determinista, sin IA' and describing the informational content returned (treatment decision, offer, data to provide, follow-up page, calculation tool). This is useful context beyond the annotations, though it does not detail response format or failure behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: it names the input condition first, then lists the returned guidance, then flags determinism and read-only nature. Every clause contributes, with no filler or repetition.

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 simple two-parameter, read-only orientation tool, the description covers what the tool does and what the response will contain. Although there is no output schema and the exact return structure is not specified, the described output scope and safety annotations leave the agent with enough context for correct invocation.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the enum meanings and the privacy note for descripcion. The description adds only a high-level mapping ('para un tipo de agua') and no parameter-level semantics beyond that, matching the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 uses a specific verb ('orientar') with a concrete resource (a water case by water type) and spells out what the tool returns. It is clear and self-contained, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as consultar_aguas_sb or procedimiento.

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?

The opening 'Para un tipo de agua' gives a clear triggering context, and 'Solo consulta' implies a read-only orientation use. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives among the siblings, so usage 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.