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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real value on top: it discloses what is returned (which citations match, which do not, plus the article's current wording) and states a strong data-handling policy about personal data not being read or written. The phrase «el recurso la denuncia con escrito_de_via» is slightly ambiguous about whether this tool itself produces anything, but naming the sibling tool reads as a routing instruction rather than a claim of mutation, so it does not contradict readOnlyHint.

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 core capability is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the return behavior and the escalation path. The personal-data warning is restated twice («NO están entre sus campos» and «No le pidas esos datos y no los escribas»), which is deliberate but partially redundant with the schema note, so it is not maximally tight.

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 and does explain what comes back: matches, mismatches, and the current text of the cited article. For a one-parameter, closed-world read tool that is largely sufficient; details such as response shape for multiple citations or behavior when no citations are found are not covered.

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 100% on a single parameter, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by clarifying that a fragment containing just the citations is acceptable and by reinforcing the no-personal-data constraint on the input. No further syntax or size limits are given, which keeps it from a 5.

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: cross-check every quoted article citation in a resolution text against the BOE consolidated text, listing matches and mismatches. The example format («el artículo 82.4 de la LRJS dispone que “…”») makes the unit of work unmistakable, and the tool is clearly distinct from siblings like escrito_de_via, which it names as the downstream step.

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?

Makes clear when to call it (you have a resolution text or the fragment where it transcribes the law) and what to do with a mismatch (route to escrito_de_via with the specific illegality code and citasDeLaResolucion). It does not state explicit exclusions — e.g. that it is not for checking unquoted paraphrases or non-BOE sources — so the when-not side is left implicit.

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