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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the response carries a `cobertura` field explaining what is NOT covered, with an explicit warning not to infer absence of risk from absence of signals — an important false-negative caveat for a risk tool. It could say more about coverage limits or data freshness.

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?

It is a dense single paragraph, front-loaded with the actual returned signals before pivoting to use cases and the caveat. Every clause carries information, though it is longer than strictly necessary for a one-parameter read tool.

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 an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and the description still notes the key `cobertura` field. It covers what is returned, why to use it, and the false-negative caveat — the main remaining gap is that it never explains the `empresa_id` input.

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% and the description says nothing about the single `empresa_id` parameter — no format, no hint on where to obtain it (e.g., from asientouno_buscar_empresa). With one required parameter and no schema doc, the description should compensate but does not.

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 description names a specific resource (company risk signals) and enumerates exactly what it returns: concurso de acreedores (declaración y conclusión), otras situaciones concursales, disolución y extinción, plus BOE concursos history in `concursos_boe`. This level of specificity lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like asientouno_informe_completo or asientouno_actos_borme without opening any schema.

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?

It states the intended use cases clearly (diligencia debida, prevención de blanqueo, análisis de crédito), which tells the agent when this tool is the right choice. It does not name alternative tools or any when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of the explicit routing that earns a 5.

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