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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose what is returned (id and signers) and that templates originate in the web UI. It does not state that the call is read-only/non-mutating, nor how pagination behaves despite the 'pagina' parameter, leaving behavioral gaps.

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 verb and resource, with the workflow note second. No filler, though the second sentence is arguably marginal given no sibling is named.

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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose and returned fields but omits pagination semantics and confirmation that it is a safe read. Adequate but with clear gaps for an agent planning pagination over results.

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?

There is a single optional parameter whose schema description coverage is 100% ('Página (por defecto 1)'), so the schema already documents it. The description adds no page-size, ordering, or filtering semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource ('Lista las plantillas del equipo') and names the return fields (id, firmantes), so the agent knows this is a read/list operation over team templates. It is distinguishable from crear_documento_desde_plantilla by scope, though it never names a sibling 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?

The clause 'las plantillas se arman en la interfaz web; desde acá se usan para generar documentos' implies the workflow (discover template ids here, then generate documents), which suggests when to call it. However, it never explicitly names an alternative tool or states when NOT to use this one, so usage is inferred rather than directed.

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