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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description restates the sort behavior that the orden enum already implies and adds little new behavioral context such as pagination or result limits.

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 describing filters and ordering, followed by tightly chosen example queries. Efficient, though the example list is slightly long for the value it adds.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the filter/sort surface and usage scenarios adequately. The main gap is that the limite parameter and result-volume behavior go unmentioned.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by naming the four filter fields and the ordering modes. It adds meaning beyond the schema for texto, provincia, comunidad, cuenca, and orden, though it never explains the limite cap.

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 (Lista) and resource (embalses de España), and enumerates the filter dimensions (nombre, provincia, comunidad, cuenca) plus the three sort modes. This clearly distinguishes it from estado_embalse, historico_embalse, and resumen_agua_embalsada, which cover status/history/summary rather than search.

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?

Three concrete example queries ('¿qué embalses hay en Huesca?', 'los pantanos más vacíos de Andalucía', 'embalses de la cuenca del Segura') strongly imply when to reach for this tool. It does not explicitly exclude sibling tools, but the examples make the intended use clear.

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