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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: the response includes a source URL and an attribution requirement under CC BY 4.0, which is a concrete behavioral/legal constraint an agent should respect.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then lists return fields and the attribution requirement. It is dense but not repetitive, and every sentence earns its place; a tighter structure with bullet-like segmentation would improve readability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what the response contains, and it does: group and constituency by legislature, votes recorded, abstention and dissent counts, specific dissenting votes, plus source URL and attribution. For a one-parameter read-only tool with secure annotations, this is complete enough for correct invocation and use.

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%, and the sole parameter 'diputado' is fully documented there with examples. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states it returns a detailed record ('Ficha') for a specific deputy, listing group, constituency, voting participation, and dissent counts. This distinguishes it from a search tool, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from siblings like buscar_diputados or voto_de_diputado.

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?

Usage is implied by the noun phrase 'Ficha de un diputado' and the listed contents, so an agent can infer it retrieves a single deputy's profile. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer routing from sibling names alone.

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