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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context by explicitly stating it does not send anything, does not handle personal data, and returns the text and the URL—information that goes 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 description is two sentences with no redundant words. It front-loads the main action and immediately clarifies non-behaviors, making it highly efficient and scannable.

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 drafting tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and privacy constraints. However, it omits any explanation of the parameters (especially 'tipo_de_agua') and does not clarify when to use it relative to siblings, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 50%—only 'descripcion' has a description, while 'tipo_de_agua' only has an enum without explanation. The tool description does not mention or clarify either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the incomplete schema, leaving the agent without guidance on what values like 'consumo' or 'residual' mean.

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 drafts the text of a water study request for Aguas SB based on the case, and returns the text plus the form URL. It explicitly distinguishes itself by noting it does NOT send anything or handle personal data, setting it apart from siblings like consultar_aguas_sb or orientar_caso_agua.

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 description implies this tool is for drafting a study request when the user has a case description, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the sibling tools, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative routes. The context is clear but the guidance on selection is minimal.

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