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 disclosing the returned content and pointing out that the current price lives at url_informacion, which matters because there is no output schema to carry that information.

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 tight sentences with zero filler: purpose and key first, then the returned contents and the price pointer. Nothing is redundant and the important routing information is front-loaded.

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 describing returns, and it does so reasonably (descripción, form fields, enlaces, price location). It leaves some detail about the exact shape of the ficha and its links unstated, keeping it short of fully 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the single `tipo` parameter with an example. The description still adds meaning by tying `tipo` to its origin in listar_tramites, clarifying where the value comes from beyond the schema's generic 'Código del trámite'.

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 un trámite'), identifies the lookup key ('código tipo'), and enumerates what the ficha contains (descripción, datos del formulario, enlaces). It is clearly the single-item counterpart to the sibling listar_tramites, so an agent can tell it apart from the list and recommendation tools.

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?

It names the prerequisite/source of the identifier ('de listar_tramites'), which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate and how to obtain its input. It does not state explicit exclusions (e.g., when to prefer que_tramite_necesito), so it stops short of a 5.

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