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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses two important behavioral constraints: tenant scoping (do tenant atual) and the exclusive use of public_uid (not internal numeric IDs). These go beyond a generic 'get show' and help the agent avoid common mistakes.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the main action, and zero filler. Every word adds value—verb, resource, scope, and access method are all packed efficiently.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and full parameter descriptions, the description is almost complete. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use response_profile or sensitive details, but those are documented in the schema, so the gap is minor.

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 input schema has 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that 'id' must be a public_uid, but this adds no new meaning beyond the schema's existing description for that parameter.

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 uses a specific verb (Consulta) and resource (registro de show), and scopes it to the current tenant. It clearly distinguishes from sibling list tools and other get_* tools by specifying the unique access method (somente public_uid).

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?

It provides clear context for usage: retrieving a single show record using the public_uid. It implicitly excludes list operations and other get tools, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions.

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