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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description needn't repeat it. The word 'publicado' adds a small behavioral hint that unpublished slugs likely won't resolve, but nothing about failure behavior or auth is stated.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb leads and the scope follows. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, but nothing is wasted.

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?

Complexity is low (one required string, closed-world, idempotent read) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, with three sibling getters/searchers and no routing or failure guidance, an agent has to guess which tool to reach for for a given slug.

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 carries the burden for the single parameter — yet 'para un slug' only restates the parameter name. The pattern (lowercase kebab-case) and 160-char limit living in the schema are never acknowledged, and the 'published' constraint on acceptable values is only implied.

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 states a specific verb (devuelve) and resource (metadata canónica y Markdown) scoped to a published slug, so an agent can tell what comes back. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with siblings like search_jefe_guides or get_jefe_product, which is the only gap at this level.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (search_jefe_guides, list_jefe_resources), and no prerequisite statement. The only usable signal, that the slug must be published, is embedded in the purpose sentence rather than offered as routing advice.

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