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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavior beyond them: a value with a count is a working filter, `contiene` falls back to offering similar spellings instead of returning a misleading zero, and counts under `terminos`/`tribunal` are scoped to that search. It does not cover response format details beyond counts.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the `contiene` behavior and the count-scoping behavior. Each paragraph carries distinct information, though the prose is slightly verbose for the amount of content.

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 5 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return-value semantics (counts per value, scoped counts) that the schema cannot. It is complete enough to call correctly, missing only edge-case behavior such as the `tope` cap interaction.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: `contiene` searches within the facet and triggers the similar-spelling fallback, while `terminos`/`tribunal` scope the counts to that specific search rather than global totals. This goes beyond the schema's one-line parameter descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it publishes the real vocabulary of a filter with per-value document counts, and asserts it is the only reliable source of those values. This clearly separates it from the buscar_* and leer_* siblings by function, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly in the description text.

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 gives clear context for when to use it: to discover which values actually work as filters and to see which chambers or subjects touch a topic 'antes de gastar una consulta'. There is no explicit when-not or named-alternative guidance, but the intended moment of use is well conveyed.

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