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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, the description discloses no API key needed, a per-minute rate limit with HTTP 429 and Retry-After, and that an out-of-range number returns an explicit error. That is exactly the kind of operational context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then usage rules, then operational caveats — a good ordering with no filler sentences. The enumeration of return fields is somewhat long and overlaps with the existing output schema, a minor redundancy.

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 no prose explanation, yet the description still signals the official-text vs. summary distinction. Scope, input constraints, error behavior, auth and rate limits are all covered; nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% with min/max already declared, so the description's restatement of 1-350 is largely redundant. It does add one piece of real semantics — that out-of-range input produces an error stating the problem — which goes slightly 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 ("Devuelve el texto oficial completo de un artículo") plus the valid range and what the payload contains. It also names the sibling tool buscar_articulos and the condition that selects it, so an agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

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?

"Úsala cuando ya sepas el número; si no, búscalo antes con buscar_articulos" gives an explicit when-to-use plus the alternative. It also adds a downstream usage rule — cite the official text, not the summary — which guides how to use the result.

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