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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the 7-day/10-row cap, the X-API-Key auth requirement with a link, the coverage limitation (only Registro Mercantil companies matched by NIF) and interpretation constraints for AEAT_DEBTOR (is_current_list window, 'never say the debt is still outstanding'). It stops short of describing error behavior, rate limits or how other signal types' detail payloads look.

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 binding constraints (7 days, 10 rows) are front-loaded and each subsequent block — type list, AEAT semantics, auth, history pointer — carries distinct information. The AEAT paragraph is dense and slightly over-weighted relative to other types, which get no equivalent explanation.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the record limit, auth mechanism, coverage caveat and detailed semantics for one signal type's fields. It leaves the field structure of the other eight types and the overall response envelope undescribed, which an agent would need to handle results reliably.

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 coverage is 100% but the single parameter's schema text just says 'see the tool description' and provides no enum, so the description's enumeration of INSOLVENCY_FILED, ACCORDION, MASS_EXIT and the rest is the only source of valid values. It does not specify case sensitivity or whether an invalid value silently returns nothing.

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 first sentence names a specific resource ('derived risk signals'), its scope ('last 7 publication days, max 10 rows') and enumerates every signal type returned. An agent immediately knows what comes back. It does not, however, position itself against siblings such as daily_digest or search_events, which also surface event 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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is framed as a sample and the description points to the hosted /v1/signals endpoint for full history, which tells an agent this is a bounded preview. There is no explicit 'use this when… instead of daily_digest/search_events' routing, and no stated conditions under which the tool should be avoided.

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