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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description contributes genuinely non-obvious behavior: cross-outlet notes are not returned in full but as a summary plus original link. It stops short of describing error handling for invalid URLs or missing notes.

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 tight sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and the fallback case second; nothing is padded. The parenthetical English translation is brief enough not to disrupt reading flow.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the key detail an agent needs: what is returned, including the degraded summary+link case. Only failure modes (invalid slug, note not found) are left unspecified.

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 'nota' parameter's accepted formats (URL or identifier) are already documented in the schema with examples. The description restates 'dirección o identificador' without adding format, validation, or slug-normalization detail beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource ('leer el detalle de una nota de Cadena Láser') plus the required input ('a partir de su dirección o identificador'), which cleanly separates it from list/search siblings like buscar_noticias and ultimas_noticias. It also scopes the behavior to a single article rather than a collection.

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 precondition for calling it is implicit but clear: you need a URL or slug. The description adds the useful fallback case (if the note belongs to another outlet, you get a summary and a link), which sets expectations about output. However, it never explicitly names an alternative tool or states when-not to use this one.

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