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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read; the description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing that the response includes a cobertura field explaining what is NOT covered and warns against inferring absence of risk from absence of signals. This is meaningful beyond the annotation.

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?

Three sentences: the first delivers the core content, the second gives use cases, and the third adds an important caveat. There is no repetition of schema or annotation information and no filler.

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 one simple parameter, an output schema, and a readOnly annotation, the description supplies the essential domain context, return content expectations (date and PDF), usage scenarios, and an important interpretation caveat. Nothing critical appears 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining the single parameter. It only indirectly anchors empresa_id by saying the tool reports signals 'de una empresa'; it does not describe how the ID is used or where it comes from. For a single obvious integer ID this is adequate but not fully compensating.

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 names a specific resource (risk signals published in BORME), enumerates the concrete signal types (concurso de acreedores, disolución, extinción), and mentions the returned date and official PDF. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as asientouno_actos_borme, which would cover BORME acts more broadly, and asientouno_cuentas_anuales.

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?

It explicitly states the intended use cases: due diligence, anti-money-laundering, and credit analysis. It does not name sibling alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a full when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guide, but the context is clear.

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