Esquema de los datos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: that this is a one-shot orientation call whose output is interpretation rules, not just a DDL dump. It doesn't state the response format or size, so 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?

Two sentences, no filler. The content scope comes first and the action directive (call once, before queries) is front-loaded at the end where it reads as the takeaway. Every clause names a concrete artifact (montos, notas de crédito, RCV, F29).

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of previewing the return value — and it does, listing tables, columns, types, meanings and domain interpretation rules. For a no-argument orientation tool, nothing an agent needs before calling it is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing a description could add on parameter semantics. The description correctly spends no words on inputs.

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?

Specific verb ("describe") and resource (the tables behind consulta_sql), plus an enumeration of what the output covers: column types and meanings, amount/credit-note/RCV/F29 interpretation rules, and data-absence handling. It explicitly anchors itself to the sibling consulta_sql, so an agent can tell it apart from the query tool without opening a 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?

"Llámala una vez antes de escribir consultas" gives a clear when (before authoring queries) and a cardinality constraint (once, i.e. idempotent, matching the annotation). No explicit when-not or named alternative beyond the implied consulta_sql reference, which keeps it short of a 5.

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