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 the result cap (up to 5), that links are included, and a non-legal-advice disclaimer, which is useful context but not deep behavioral detail.

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 carries the core behavior, the two parenthetical examples, and the result cap, followed by a short disclaimer. Efficient and readable with minimal waste.

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 correctly covers the return shape (up to 5 procedures with links) and caveats the nature of the output. For a one-parameter, read-only lookup this is largely sufficient; only sibling routing is absent.

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 there is a single 'necesidad' parameter already documented as 'in the person's own words'. The description reinforces this with concrete natural-language examples but adds no syntax, format, or constraint beyond the schema.

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+resource with scope: takes a natural-language need and returns up to 5 matching Zertidox procedures with links. This is clear on its own, but it never names or contrasts against the siblings (listar_tramites, detalle_tramite), so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 examples ('certificado de antecedentes penales', 'valorar mi piso') imply when the tool applies, and the 'orientación informativa' line sets a soft expectation. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs listar_tramites or detalle_tramite, leaving routing to inference.

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