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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the query act and tenant/uid scoping, but doesn't disclose that sensitive details require admin authorization, the meaning of response profiles, or any potential side effects. The schema descriptions cover some of this, but the description itself lacks transparency.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose and key constraint. It is efficient with no redundant words, fully earning 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?

The description is adequate for a simple read operation, especially with a complete schema and output schema. However, it omits high-level context about sensitive access controls and when to prefer this over search/list tools. Given the tool's moderate complexity (sensitive params), the description could be more complete, though the schema compensates.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description only reiterates the public_uid requirement already present in the schema, adding no new semantic information about the four parameters. It doesn't compensate for anything the schema already documents.

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 clearly states the verb 'consulta' and the resource 'registro de videograma', scoped to the current tenant and specifically by public_uid. This fully distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools for other entity types and from list_videograma, which would be used for multiple records.

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?

The description provides clear context: use this to fetch a single videogram record using only public_uid. It implies the alternative (list_videograma for multiple records) via the sibling naming, though it doesn't explicitly name it. The 'somente public_uid' also gives a key usage constraint, but no explicit exclusions or alternative mentions.

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