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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false). The description adds real value by disclosing the return content (fields with type, meaning, and example) and the no-name listing behavior, which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of describing error or empty-result behavior.

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 tight sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads what is returned, the second adds the no-name case. Nothing repeats the name or title, and the ellipsis in the object examples stays readable.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and how to discover object names, which is enough to invoke it correctly. It is only slightly short on distinguishing object names from the 'Error' case handled by explain_error.

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% and the single parameter's description already says 'El objeto, por ejemplo Invoice.' The description adds the consequence of omitting it (returns the object list), which enriches meaning slightly, but overall the schema carries the load.

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 (describe) and resource (object returned by the API), and enumerates the payload: fields, type, meaning, and an example. This is clearly distinct from describe_operation or list_operations, though it never names those siblings explicitly to draw the contrast.

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?

The clause 'Sin nombre, la lista de objetos' gives a conditional usage mode (call with no name to discover valid objects), which is genuinely helpful. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this over describe_operation or explain_error, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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