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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description does not contradict it. It adds that the entire SDK.md is returned (not a summary or excerpt), which is useful, but says nothing about size, freshness, or whether the content is truncated.

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, no filler: the prerequisite instruction comes first and the return value second. Every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

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 zero-parameter documentation fetch with no output schema, the description supplies the key missing piece: what the call returns (full SDK.md) and when to make it. It falls short only on undefined domain terminology ("contrato de noback") and on any hint about document size or versioning.

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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond confirming the call needs no arguments, which the empty schema already makes obvious.

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 concrete outcome: it returns the complete SDK.md, a documentation artifact. The verb is imperative ("Leé primero") rather than a description of the operation, and "contrato de noback" is unexplained jargon, but an agent can still tell this is a full-document fetch distinct from the create/update/validate siblings.

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?

"Leé primero... para escribir o cambiar una app" gives an explicit trigger: call this before writing or modifying an app, which maps onto create_app and update_app without naming them. No exclusion is stated for validate_app, so it is a clear context rather than a complete when/when-not rule.

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