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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety needs no restating. The description usefully signals that the board set is small and volatile ('Five boards today'), but never explains what the country_id/country_code filters do to the result set, which is the main behavioral unknown for a tool that otherwise looks Colombia-only.

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?

Purpose and the relationship to list_committee_minutes are front-loaded in the first clause, and the enumeration is real payload rather than filler. Embedding live counts in prose risks staleness, but it is compact and each element earns its space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described, and the annotation set covers the safety profile. The only material omission is the effect of the country filters, which is left entirely to the schema.

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% and both optional params are documented in-schema (including the deprecated alias warning), so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the params, and notably never says whether country filtering changes or merely narrows the board list.

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?

States a specific resource (INVIMA's specialized committee boards) and what the response yields (exact names plus per-board minute counts). It is immediately distinguishable from list_committee_minutes, which consumes the names this tool supplies.

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?

Explicitly frames the use case: call this first so you don't have to guess the spelling for `board=` in list_committee_minutes. That is a concrete when-to-use plus a named downstream consumer, which is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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