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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it only reveals that results include per-status counters. It says nothing about pagination behavior despite skip/take parameters, default page size, ordering, or whether the counters reflect all lines or only the current page.

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 short sentence with the resource front-loaded and the counters detail appended; no wasted wording. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, which is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness one.

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 5-parameter list tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 20% schema coverage, one sentence is not enough. An agent must guess at pagination defaults and how the undocumented filter/search parameters relate to the reported status counters.

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 only 20% — just the 'filter' enum values are documented in the schema, while expedientId, skip, take, and search are bare. The description adds no meaning for any of them, not even confirming that expedientId is the case whose lines are returned or that filter values map to line states.

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 ('Lista') and resource ('líneas de actuación de un expediente') and adds that counters by status are included, so the agent knows what comes back at a high level. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as expedients_get or expedient_line_add, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call this instead of expedients_get, expedients_search, or expedient_line_add, nor any precondition such as requiring a valid expedientId. The only implicit hint is that the tool is scoped to a single expedient via the required parameter.

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