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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'no modifica datos' largely restates structured data. The genuinely additive detail is the 50-item page cap, which tells the agent results are truncated and must be paged; nothing is said about ordering or what the returned references contain.

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 resource and scope, then the pagination instruction. No filler, though the 'no modifica datos' clause is redundant with the annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the page-size limit plus offset continuation covers the main operational concern. The only minor gap is silence on result ordering and on the analytics-only conversation_id parameter.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters, including the 50-step offset increments. The description reinforces offset's role for continuation but adds nothing about conversation_id, leaving it to the schema.

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 specific verb (Lista) and resource (presupuestos propios y referencias guardadas) with a clear scope: up to 50 items from the authorized account. It is distinguishable from siblings like abrir_presupuesto or buscar_conceptos, though it never names an alternative 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?

Gives concrete pagination guidance ('Usa offset para continuar'), which tells the agent how to iterate. However, it offers no when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and does not point to any sibling for related tasks such as opening or searching a specific budget.

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