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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it returns a document_id, it is free, and it exposes only the catalog, not the full content. It omits details like pagination or result limits, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: scope, filter options, return value, and cost/positioning. It is front-loaded with what the tool is and avoids filler or repetition of the schema.

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 catalog tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives the essential invocation context: available filters, the returned document_id, and the relationship to consultar_ley. Minor gaps remain around how filters combine and what happens with multiple matches, but this is sufficient for correct selection and basic invocation.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning, and it largely does: it maps materia to examples (Civil/Penal/Fiscal/Laboral), ambito to examples (Federal/Estatal/Nacional), entidad as a filter, and 'texto en el nombre' to the q parameter. It does not explain matching semantics or all valid entidad values, but it makes every parameter understandable.

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 clearly states a specific resource: the index of available Mexican legislation, including the scope (Constitution, codes, federal/national/state laws). It also names the action (filter and return document_id) and distinguishes itself from content tools by saying it is 'el catalogo, no el contenido.' This makes its purpose and difference from consultar_ley explicit.

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?

The description says it returns the document_id needed for consultar_ley, which tells the agent to use it as a lookup step before fetching content. It also clarifies that it is only the catalog, not the content itself. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like buscar_ley or state when not to use them.

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