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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds that each act carries a date and an official PDF link, plus the 'Plan Pro' access restriction. It does not cover pagination or how far back the history reaches, which would matter for a potentially large historical dataset.

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 resource definition, followed by routing advice and the plan requirement. The act-type enumeration is somewhat long but each item conveys concrete coverage, so it earns most of its space.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so: acts with date and official PDF. Access tier, routing versus the sibling tool, and scope of act types are all covered for a single-parameter read tool.

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% and the single cif parameter is fully documented in the schema (formato CIF/NIF, se aceptan espacios y guiones). The description adds nothing about the identifier beyond what the schema already says, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource (todos los actos publicados en el BORME) and enumerates the concrete act types returned (constituciones, nombramientos y ceses, ampliaciones de capital, disolución, concurso...). It clearly separates itself from get_company by scoping to corporate-act history rather than current status.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it (historia y cambios recientes) and names the alternative with the condition that selects it (para el estado actual basta get_company). It also flags the Pro plan requirement, which affects whether the agent can call it at all.

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