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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld=false/destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context beyond them: it returns only what the web screen shows, it accepts no personal data, and the generated escrito leaves bracketed placeholders for the applicant to fill. It does not discuss caching or the size/shape of the 52-record payload.

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 dense paragraph, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the disambiguation and privacy constraints. All sentences earn their place, though the long enumeration of returned fields could be tightened into a shorter list.

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 carries the burden of describing return values and does so field by field. The only gap is the container/format of the result set (an array of 52 records) and any ordering, which are implied but not stated.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the description reinforces this by explicitly telling the caller not to pass personal data in the call. Baseline for 0 params is 4; there is nothing further to disambiguate.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Devuelve') plus a precisely enumerated resource: the field-by-field record for each ilegalidad in the justicia gratuita expediente. It also differentiates itself from the sibling catalogue by stating it is 'la única lista válida del campo `ilegalidades` de `impugnacion_justicia_gratuita`' and that the flat list cannot resolve which entry applies.

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?

Clear about when to use it: whenever the agent needs to pick the correct ilegalidad for `impugnacion_justicia_gratuita`, with an explicit warning that the plain list is insufficient. It also gives a negative instruction about not requesting or writing personal data. It does not explicitly name a competing sibling to use for other purposes, which keeps it below 5.

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