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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: results are paginated and each act includes a link to the official PDF, i.e. provenance. These are not deducible from the annotation alone, though auth and rate-limit behavior are not mentioned.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause contributes: what is listed, for whom, pagination, and the official-PDF provenance detail.

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?

Given the output schema and the readOnlyHint, the description plus schema is largely sufficient for calling this simple read-only tool correctly. The main gap is the absence of explicit usage guidance relative to the sibling tools, so it is not a perfect 5.

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?

The schema already documents `tipo`, `desde`, and `cursor`; `limit` has bounds, type, and default. The description only adds the general company scope and pagination, and it does not compensate for the undocumented `empresa_id`. With 60% schema coverage, this is adequate but not especially informative at the parameter level.

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 states the specific verb ('Lista'), the resource ('actos del BORME'), and the scope ('de una empresa'), and adds pagination plus official PDF links. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools for contracts, annual accounts, risk, subsidies, and person roles.

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 use case is implied by naming the BORME acts resource, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool over the siblings or when not to use it. It gives the agent enough to infer the basic purpose, but no routing guidance.

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