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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it returns a pre-read (cached) summary and each datum carries its source page, which is useful provenance information not present in the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the return contents and closing with the scoping precondition; no filler. Slightly dense enumeration but each element 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return payload (requisitos, documentos, scoring, garantías, pagos, alertas, with page provenance) sufficiently for an agent to know what it gets back. For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly complete.

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 100% and the single parameter 'proceso' is fully documented in the schema as accepting a URL, nomenclature, or ocid. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 el resumen ya leído de las bases de un proceso') and enumerates exactly what the summary contains (requisitos, documentos, puntos, garantías y pagos, alertas). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ficha_empresa or ficha_entidad, which cover different resources.

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?

Explicitly bounds usage with 'Solo para procesos cuyas bases ya leyó MissLicita', which tells the agent when this tool is valid. It does not, however, name an alternative tool for processes whose bases have not yet been read, leaving that routing to inference.

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