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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds scope information ('por nombre', 'cargos vigentes e históricos', 'grafo de relacionadas') which is useful but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, or whether the graph is computed on demand. With annotations handling safety, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the main action and result. Every phrase is informative: search by name, return current/historical positions, and linked companies graph. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are documented. However, the description does not explain how persona_id relates to the search or when to use it, and it lacks guidance on input combinations. For a tool with two optional parameters, this leaves some ambiguity about invocation patterns.

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 only 50% (nombre has a description, persona_id has none), and the tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema. It never mentions persona_id as an alternative lookup key or clarifies its role. The description fails to compensate for the missing persona_id documentation.

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 a specific action ('Busca una persona por nombre') and a precise result ('devuelve sus cargos vigentes e históricos, con las empresas vinculadas'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like asientouno_buscar_empresa or asientouno_contratos_empresa by focusing on a person's roles and related companies.

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 the tool is for searching a person and retrieving their positions, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide any exclusions. Sibling tools are listed in context but never referenced in the description, leaving usage guidance to inference.

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