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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose a key behavioral trait: it returns the answer together with the source URL so it can be cited. It does not state limits (e.g., that it will not compute prices or dimension a real installation), which matters given the sibling tools.

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, zero filler: the capability and topic scope come first, the return contract (answer + citable source URL) second. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, the domain, and what comes back. The one gap is routing guidance versus precio_por_region and simular_casa, which an agent would need to avoid misusing a Q&A tool for lookups or simulations.

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% ('La pregunta en español.') so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by constraining acceptable question content to regulatory and conceptual solar topics rather than any question. Minor addition, but a genuine one beyond the schema text.

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 ('Responde preguntas') plus a tightly scoped resource: regulatory and conceptual questions about residential solar energy in Chile, with enumerated topics (Ley Net Billing 21.118, trámite SEC TE4, garantías, orientación del techo, dimensionamiento). The topic enumeration implicitly separates it from the pricing and simulation siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the informational Q&A tool rather than a calculator, but the description never states when to prefer it, when not to (e.g., for a price quote or a savings simulation), or that such questions should go to the siblings. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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