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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: every response embeds a «url» backing the data plus an «atribucion» field, and it explains the CC BY 4.0 attribution/linking obligation the caller must honour. That licensing constraint would be invisible otherwise.

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 core content before the licensing caveat, and no filler. It is dense but slightly overloaded with legislative references (XV/XIV, Real Decreto 806/2026) that could have been tightened.

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 does the work of stating the response contents (legislature seats, election seats, deputies, plus url and atribucion). What it omits is failure behaviour for an unrecognised province name and any note on how substitutions are represented.

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 single parameter already documents itself with examples («Zaragoza», «Ceuta»). The description adds no further semantics about the parameter, such as accent handling or whether official spellings are required, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 names a specific resource (a circunscripción/provincia) and enumerates exactly what is returned: seats in the XV legislature, seats for the 29-N-2026 general elections, and its deputies in the XV and XIV legislatures with substitutions. This is clearly distinguished from person-oriented siblings such as ver_diputado or buscar_diputados without needing to open any schema.

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 usage is implied: you supply a province name and get that constituency's data. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of what alternatives exist (e.g. ver_elecciones_29n for election-wide data), and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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