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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of the payload (full record with specific sections), but says nothing about behavior on an invalid/nonexistent code or any lookup constraints, leaving limited added context beyond structured fields.

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, zero filler, with the resource and its returned sections front-loaded before the usage instruction. Every clause earns its place.

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 usefully enumerates what the record contains, which an agent needs in order to rely on the result. Combined with read-only annotations and a fully documented single parameter, it is nearly complete, missing only error/empty-result behavior.

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% and the single parameter already documents the BDNS format (5-7 digits, example 922483). The description only restates 'por su código BDNS', adding no syntax or edge-case meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (convocatoria), the key it is looked up by (código BDNS), and enumerates the returned content (beneficiarios, importes, plazos, requisitos, enlace a las bases). It clearly reads as a detail-fetch tool, implicitly distinct from the buscar_* search siblings via 'después de buscar', though no sibling is named outright.

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?

'Úsala después de buscar, antes de afirmar un requisito o una fecha' gives a concrete workflow position and a reason to prefer it over asserting facts directly. It stops short of naming alternatives (buscar_convocatorias) or stating when not to use it, so it is clear but not fully routing.

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