Estado de los datos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real context beyond that by disclosing that it performs live queries against external sources (BDNS, BOE) and reports on a temporary cache and a planned calendar. It does not say anything about latency, external-source availability, or failure behavior, so it does not reach a 4.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, opening with the core question ('De dónde salen los datos') and then listing the three components. Efficient and easy to scan; it could arguably break the three status areas out slightly more for faster parsing.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description has to convey what comes back, and it does so by naming the three reported areas: live source query status, cache state, and the planned calendar. For a zero-parameter status tool this is close to complete; only the response shape (e.g., per-source flags versus free text) remains unspecified.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Schema description coverage is 100% and the empty object schema is unambiguous. No parameter information is missing.

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 concrete resource (data provenance/state) and enumerates the three things inspected: live BDNS and BOE queries, temporary cache state, and the planned calendar. That is enough for an agent to tell it apart from the sibling retrieval tools (boe_*, ayudas_*), which fetch content rather than report system status. It stops short of 5 because the verb is nominal ('estado') rather than an explicit action.

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: this is plainly a diagnostic/freshness-check tool, and a reader can infer it is called to verify where data stands before relying on other tools. However, no explicit when-to-use condition, prerequisite, or alternative is stated, and none of the siblings is named as a contrasting option. Implied-but-not-stated guidance lands at 3.

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