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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: it discloses data provenance (tenants derived from DENUE addresses of manufacturing plants) and coverage rules (page-listed parks have 5+ plants; smaller parks appear with con_pagina: false). That coverage caveat is exactly the kind of hidden scope limit an agent needs, though result caps or pagination are still unstated.

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 is front-loaded in sentence one, followed by provenance, coverage, and id-routing in a logical order with no filler. The DENUE sentence is the most expendable, but it explains why tenant data exists at all, so it still earns its place.

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 two-optional-param list tool with no output schema, the description covers return fields, data provenance, inclusion criteria, and downstream id usage — everything an agent needs to call it and interpret the response. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 both params are optional with their own descriptions, so the baseline applies. "Por nombre o estado" hints that the two filters are alternatives and that omitting both lists everything, but it doesn't clarify whether they combine as AND or OR.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: "Lista parques y zonas industriales de México por nombre o estado", then enumerates what each record carries (plantas, sectores, municipio). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining that its returned id feeds ver_parque_industrial and its centro feeds buscar_cerca.

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 last sentence places the tool in a clear workflow: this is the lookup step whose id/centro are consumed by ver_parque_industrial and buscar_cerca. What's missing is an explicit exclusion — e.g. that geographic radius search belongs to buscar_cerca rather than here — so the agent must infer the boundary.

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