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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value with the 'No es asesoría legal' disclaimer and by stating the scope of what it covers (plazo, sectores, pasos, recursos). No return format is described, but there is no output schema, and that is the only real gap.

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 law and its regulation, then the usage trigger. The enumeration is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what content is available.

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 zero-parameter, read-only informational tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly: content scope, disclaimer, and trigger. Minor gap is the absence of any guidance on what the response looks like or its limits.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing to document and the description correctly does not pretend otherwise.

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 ('Resume') and resource (Ley 31814 de IA del Perú y su reglamento DS 115-2025-PCM), then enumerates the exact contents: plazo, sectores, cuatro pasos, recursos. This clearly separates it from siblings like glosario_ia or radar_ia without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit trigger: 'Úsala cuando pregunten por la ley peruana de IA, su reglamento o cómo preparar a una empresa para cumplirla.' That covers when-to-use well. It doesn't route to alternatives like agendar_diagnostico or diagnostico_madurez_ia for the 'how to prepare a company' case, which is a missed differentiation.

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