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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint safety. The description adds value by clarifying that the tool provides general orientation and does not actually process or execute the procedure, which is useful operational information beyond the structured 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?

Two compact sentences convey purpose, scope, all options, legal context, and a disclaimer with no redundancy. The front-loaded phrase 'Paso a paso de un trámite habitual en España' immediately establishes the tool's function.

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, idempotent tool with a single enum parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the user gets, the geographical scope, the covered topics, and that the tool does not perform real transactions. 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the one parameter. It enumerates all four enum options in natural Spanish with helpful elaborations, such as 'alcantarillado o cauce' for discharge authorization. It does not provide exact enum code mappings, but the single parameter makes this easy to infer.

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 this tool provides step-by-step guidance for common water procedures in Spain and lists four concrete use cases. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools, but the 'no tramita' caveat helps separate it from processing-oriented tools.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when the user asks about the listed procedures such as discharge authorization, public information about a treatment plant, or water analysis. It does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling tool or provide exclusion criteria beyond 'no tramita'.

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