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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description is not required to restate safety. It adds useful content-level context (that the report surfaces 'señales' like bankruptcy and dissolution), but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as output size, latency, or any aggregation behavior beyond the listed contents.

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?

One compact sentence that leads with the core purpose and then lists the report contents with a colon. Every element earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler wording.

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 aggregator tool with a single well-documented parameter and an output schema present, the description is largely sufficient. It leaves the exact response structure to the output schema and only lightly implies the tool's relationship to sibling tools, which is a minor completeness gap.

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%: the single parameter is clearly documented as the id returned by asientouno_buscar_empresa, with the caveat that the NIF is not always available. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clear resource ('informe completo de una empresa') and enumerates the specific content areas: identifying data, current board, recent acts, and signals such as bankruptcy or dissolution. It is distinguishable from the narrower sibling tools by its 'complete report' framing, though it could more explicitly contrast with them.

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 parameter description provides useful context: the empresa_id comes from asientouno_buscar_empresa, implying a search-then-report flow. However, the main description does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over the specific sibling tools, nor when not to use it.

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