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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior: the catalog's size (113 fichas), that it is the authoritative key list, and that no personal data is requested or returned because the generated escrito leaves those as bracketed blanks. It does not describe ordering or output shape in detail, but the annotation baseline makes that a minor gap.

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 purpose and the read-before-`escrito_procesal` rule are front-loaded, and each sentence carries operational weight. The personal-data point is stated twice (in the middle and again as 'No le pidas esos datos'), which is mild redundancy in an otherwise tight description.

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 describe the return value — and it does, naming the five fields of each ficha and the total count. For a parameterless, read-only catalog tool this leaves nothing an agent needs unresolved.

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 zero parameters the baseline is 4. The description usefully reinforces this by telling the agent that no personal data should be supplied in the call, which prevents an agent from inventing arguments for a schema that forbids them.

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 concrete verb and resource (devuelve el catálogo entero de los escritos de /recursos) and enumerates the returned record contents: clave, zona, para qué sirve, campos y cláusulas accesorias. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `escrito_procesal`, which consumes this catalog, so an agent can route correctly without inspecting either 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?

Gives an explicit ordering rule — read this before calling `escrito_procesal` — plus a hard prohibition against inventing keys. It also states when not to ask for or pass personal data, closing off a likely misuse path.

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