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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so no contradiction exists. The description adds provenance and output-field context, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, result ordering, or any limitations beyond what the schema and output schema already provide.

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 compact and well-structured: the core purpose and data source are front-loaded, followed by a concise list of returned fields and a one-sentence value proposition. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant 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?

For a read-only lookup tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: source, entity, fields, and official link. The remaining gaps, such as explicit pagination guidance and sibling comparisons, are partially mitigated by the input schema and tool naming.

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 low at 33%, so the description must compensate. It does map the main parameter through 'recibidas por una empresa' and the company context, but it does not explicitly clarify limit's role or pagination semantics. The schema's default/min/max and the cursor description still give enough information for a likely correct invocation.

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 verb and resource: retrieving public subsidies and aid received by a company from the official BDNS database. It lists the concrete data points included (granting body, instrument, amount, date, official bulletin link) and clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like contracts, annual accounts, or risk data.

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 gives clear context: this is the tool for official public grant data, and it explicitly notes that traditional mercantile reports do not cross-reference this data. It does not enumerate sibling alternatives or explicit exclusion cases, but the context is strong and actionable for an agent.

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