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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds the useful framing that this is a static internal catalog (closed world) but says nothing about result size, ordering, or matching behavior for the free-text search.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose followed by the filtering modes, and the inline examples add signal rather than padding. Nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter, read-only catalog lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose and both filter modes adequately. Minor gaps remain: it does not indicate what a result entry contains or whether results are truncated, which an agent might want before deciding to rely on it for exhaustive listings.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it explains that one parameter filters by category and the other is free-text search, with three illustrative query terms. The categoria enum values are self-documenting in the schema, but the 'buscar' parameter would be opaque without the description's explanation.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Lista los servicios de BONUM") plus the two filtering axes, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly name or contrast itself with the siblings (capacidades_y_certificaciones, cobertura_geografica, solicitar_cotizacion), so the sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is implied clearly: filter by category or free text, with concrete example queries ("PLC", "paletizado", "solar") that show the expected input style. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over capacidades_y_certificaciones or when to escalate to solicitar_cotizacion, and no exclusions are given.

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