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 adds real behavioral value by spelling out the aggregated fields returned (open tender counts, near-closing tenders, recent awardees, award ratio vs. reference value), telling the agent what it gets back beyond a raw record. It omits auth/rate-limit or empty-result behavior.

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: verb and resource first, then the returned content in a compact parenthetical list. No filler sentences; every clause describes what the tool yields.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns and does so concretely, and annotations cover the safety profile. It is slightly short on edge cases (unknown entity name, naming variants) but is otherwise complete for a 1-param read tool.

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?

Single parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents the name and gives an example. The description only reinforces that the name must be a Peruvian State entity, adding marginal semantic value over the schema baseline.

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 ("Devuelve") and resource ("la ficha de una entidad del Estado peruano"), then enumerates the exact content (open tenders, upcoming closings, recent winners, award-to-reference ratio). The "entidad del Estado" scope implicitly separates it from ficha_empresa and the raw listing tools like buscar_licitaciones.

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: an agent can infer this is the aggregate profile lookup for a public entity, but the description never says when to prefer it over ficha_empresa, ficha_de_bases, or buscar_licitaciones, nor any prerequisite. Adequate but no explicit routing guidance.

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