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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description does add real value with the negative scope ("No devuelve teléfonos ni correos") and the return-field enumeration plus the hard 25-plant page cap, but it says nothing about failure modes for an invalid id or how access/source data is represented.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that opens with the verb and resource, then lists contents and closes with the exclusion. It is dense and run-on but every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 takes on the burden of describing return contents and does so thoroughly, including the pagination limit and what is deliberately omitted. Only the prerequisite for the id and the two undocumented pagination params keep it short of full completeness.

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 50%: only id and categoria are documented there. The description partially compensates by stating the plants are paginated with a maximum of 25, which explains por_pagina's cap, but pagina's meaning and the interaction between categoria and pagination are left to inference.

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 and resource ("Devuelve un parque industrial") and enumerates exactly what is included: resumen, acceso, datos con fuente, and the plants with their sector, tamaño, sitio web and ficha. It is clearly distinct from buscar_parques_industriales or ver_empresa, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: it is evidently the detail/follow-up call after a search, but the description never says to obtain the id from buscar_parques_industriales first (that hint lives in the schema param, not the description) and gives no when-not-to-use guidance such as using obtener_contactos for phones/emails.

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