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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, closed-world reads. The description adds value beyond them by specifying sort order, the fields returned, and the hay_mas pagination contract with the exact follow-up call. It stops short of anything about failure modes or rate limits, but the annotation coverage makes this strong.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the scope and ordering come first, then filtering, routing, and pagination. Every sentence carries an operational instruction, though the final pagination sentence is somewhat procedural for the primary description body.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the returned fields and the pagination signal (hay_mas), and provides the follow-up action. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the pagination contract in prose ('desde igual a la posición siguiente'), tying desde and limite together in a way the isolated schema descriptions do not.

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 verb (listar) and resource (artículos del blog), adds ordering (más reciente al más antiguo) and the surfaced fields (slug, fecha, tema, resumen, URL). It clearly distinguishes itself from buscar and leer_articulo, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit routing: use it for novedades or all content on a tema, and 'si buscas algo concreto, usa buscar'. It also names the downstream step (leer_articulo) and the pagination loop condition (hay_mas true → repeat with desde), covering when and how to use it.

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