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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the response payload (url, atribucion) and the CC BY 4.0 obligation to cite and link the source — meaningful operational context. It omits pagination behavior around the limite parameter.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and scope, then the return/attribution note. No filler, though the attribution clause is slightly wordy.

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 usefully documents the return fields (url, atribucion) and the licensing requirement, plus scope and filters. Only pagination behavior is left unaddressed, which is a minor gap for a filtered search.

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 60%: nombre, provincia and grupo are documented in the schema, while legislatura and limite are not. The description restates the filterable fields but adds no syntax or format detail, and says nothing about limite. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries most of the burden.

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 (busca) and resource (diputados), enumerates the filterable fields (nombre, provincia, grupo, legislatura), and constrains scope to those with a web profile (XIV/XV legislature). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like ver_diputado (single-record view) or buscar_votaciones.

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 implies this is the multi-criteria search tool by listing its filters, but never states when to use it versus ver_diputado or the other sibling search/view tools, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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