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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds a mild behavioral hint that filtering is by keyword ('filtra por palabra'), but says nothing about return format, matching rules, or what an empty result looks like.

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 short sentences with the topic scope front-loaded and the parameter note second; nothing is padded. The brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure economy, but no sentence is wasted.

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 one optional parameter, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the definition is close to sufficient, but it never states what the tool returns or how filtered results are shaped. For a knowledge-retrieval tool an agent would want at least a hint that it yields feature descriptions rather than a live configuration.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter, and it does: it marks 'tema' as optional and illustrates the intended vocabulary with five concrete example keywords («tiques», «horas», «impuestos», «ERP», «WhatsApp»). This meaningfully guides value selection. It still omits whether matching is substring or whole-word and whether an empty string means no filter.

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 core sentence, "Funciones de Tablero Despacho," largely restates the tool name and title without a verb indicating what is returned (a list of features, documentation text, or snippets). It scopes the topic to the product but gives no way to distinguish it in kind from siblings like 'que_es_tablero_despacho' or 'integraciones', which are evidently the same genre of topic lookup.

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 description never says when to call this rather than the sibling topic tools, nor what happens when no topic matches. The only usage-flavored content is the note that 'tema' is optional, which comes from the schema anyway.

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