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

Annotations already cover the read-only/no-destruction profile, and the description adds genuinely behavioral context beyond them: the 50-item batch ceiling and the entitlement requirement (paid plan). It still says nothing about failure modes or how codes are validated, keeping it short of a 5.

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, front-loaded with the capability and follow-up with the gating constraint. No wasted words; every clause carries information.

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, and the annotations only cover safety, so the description should carry more weight. It is missing code-format guidance, enum value clarification, and any hint of the response shape or error behavior for a 2-required-parameter 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. 'IAE o CNAE' maps loosely to the `type` enum and the '50 fichas' phrasing mirrors maxItems, but the `codes` array format (dotted numeric pattern) and accepted enum values are never explained. It partially bridges the gap.

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 clear verb+resource: a bulk/batch lookup of up to 50 IAE or CNAE fichas in a single call. This is reasonably distinguishable from single-record siblings like detalle_iae and detalle_cnae, but the description never names those alternatives, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Communicates one real prerequisite ('Requiere un plan de pago') and implies batch usage via the 50-record cap, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs consulta single-record siblings or buscar_codigo. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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