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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds that results are metadata-only with no content, plus the exact returned fields, which is useful context beyond the annotations. It does not mention pagination behavior, hence not 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?

Front-loads the core purpose and is organized into scannable lines for use cases, alternatives, types, and returns. Slightly redundant in restating the report types already documented in the schema's report_type field.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields (id, report_type, report_date, generated_at, word_count, total_tokens). Combined with clear routing to siblings, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description echoes the 'daily/weekly/monthly' types that map to report_type but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 is 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 (Lista) and resource (reportes/informes) plus scope (SIN contenido, solo metadatos), which immediately distinguishes it from get_report and generate_report. An agent can tell it apart from siblings 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?

Explicit 'Usar para:' block gives the when-to-use cases (view history, choose one to read, check generation date), and it names both alternatives with their selecting conditions: get_report(report_id) for content and generate_report for creation.

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