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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: CSV output, official source, filter limit of 5, row limit of 1–500, and the fact that it does not consume questions.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and then uses a compact bullet list for parameter semantics. Every line adds useful information without redundant repetition.

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, the description does not need to explain return values, and it covers most operational details for a 7-parameter tool. The main gap is the lack of explicit routing against sibling tools, but the parameter and output-format context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it largely does: column names, date formats, exact-match filters with an example, sort direction, and row limits. It does not fully document the required tabla parameter or all defaults, but it compensates well for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it fetches rows from a table in CSV format from the official source. This clearly identifies the tool’s function, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools such as consultar_datos_publicos.

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 implied by the operation description and by the reference to describir_tabla for exact column names. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like consultar_datos_publicos or buscar_datasets.

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