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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states that the operation is read-only, whether results are paged by default, what the default ordering or page size is, or what the response shape looks like — all of which matter for a 10-parameter listing call.

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 core action and followed by the filter surface. No filler, though the parenthetical field names could have been merged more economically into the filter list.

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 10-parameter listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the filtering story adequately but omits pagination and sorting guidance entirely. The absence of an output schema means return values needn't be described, which softens but does not remove the gap.

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 40%, below the threshold where the schema alone would suffice. The description compensates partially by naming the filter dimensions (title, status, dueDate range, nextActionDate range) and tying the API field names to business concepts, but it says nothing about limit, offset, sortBy or sortOrder, leaving four parameters with no meaning in either place.

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 gives a specific verb+resource pair ("Lista/filtra expedientes") and parenthetically identifies the resource as "la agenda". It clearly tells the agent this is a filtered-listing operation, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as expedients_search or expedients_upcoming, leaving the boundary ambiguous.

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 by the enumeration of filters: an agent can infer this is the general-purpose listing tool. There is no statement about when to prefer it over expedients_search or expedients_upcoming, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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