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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Detalle completo" implies a read-only retrieval, but the description never states that it is non-mutating, whether authentication is required, or how missing/invalid hashes are handled. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this leaves meaningful gaps.

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 short sentence that front-loads the verb-like purpose and puts the identifier clarification in parentheses. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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?

With one required parameter and an output schema already documenting return values, the description covers what an agent minimally needs to invoke it correctly. It falls short only on error behavior and an explicit read-only statement, which would matter more if the tool were not a simple lookup.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that the hash_id is the hash appearing in the /aviso/<hash> URL path, which is real meaning beyond the bare "Hash Id" property. It still does not specify the hash format or length, so a small gap remains.

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?

"Detalle completo de un aviso por su hash" names a specific resource (aviso) and the identifier used to fetch it, so an agent knows this is a single-item detail retrieval. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tools (buscar_propiedades, listar_subdominios, zonas_disponibles), though those operate on different resources, so confusion risk is low.

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 parenthetical "el de la URL /aviso/<hash>" gives genuinely useful guidance on where the hash comes from, which is the main practical question for calling this tool. However, there is no statement of when to use it versus a search/list tool, no prerequisites, and no note on what happens if the hash is unknown.

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