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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the guide is plan-scoped, so mere tool existence does not imply availability, and the agent is told to cite sources and respect plan gating. This is real value beyond the structured hints, though it says nothing about output language, length, or freshness.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the content enumeration, while long, is informative rather than filler, with the plan-gating caveat correctly placed last as a caveat. Slightly dense and comma-chained, but every clause carries scope information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile; the description appropriately focuses on scope and interpretation. The remaining gaps are the parameter's accepted format and any routing to list_tool_guides, which are minor for a single-argument read tool.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'Guía de una herramienta' implies the argument identifies the tool being documented, which is enough to know what to pass, but no accepted format, naming convention, or example is given, and there is no enum to constrain valid values.

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 makes clear this returns a guide for a single tool, and it enumerates the guide's contents (what it is, which Conexcol plans include it, step-by-step usage, AI vs. panel responsibilities, limits, sources). That is a specific, well-scoped resource. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling list_tool_guides, leaving the singular-vs-list distinction implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it needs a per-tool guide, and the closing sentence ('que una herramienta exista no significa que esté en todos los planes') tells the agent how to interpret the result. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to list_tool_guides or the other sibling tools as alternatives.

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