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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds modest value by saying the result includes download links and pages, but it says nothing about the credential model implied by agent_pass/acesso_codigo, nor about throttling or access restrictions (a public receipt granting no access).

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource description and followed by the alternative path. No filler, though the endpoint reference is arguably less actionable for a tool-selecting agent.

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 should characterize the return value; 'download links and pages' is only partially informative and mentions no pagination or ordering. The complex access model (agent credential plus document-specific codes) is left entirely to the schema, so the definition is adequate but not fully complete for this tool.

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%, so all four parameters are already explained in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, such as how id relates to get_procurement output or how the access codes interact.

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 resource ('the catalog of the original files of the document') and enumerates its contents ('download links and pages'), so an agent can tell this is a file-listing tool. It gives no explicit verb and does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as get_document, request_original, or original_status.

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?

It points to an alternative path ('Use /api/documento/{id}/original to download the full original'), but that is a raw API endpoint rather than a sibling tool, and it never says when to pick this tool over get_document or request_original. Usage is only implied.

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