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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is fully covered. The description adds real context by flagging that a closed call's prize is not what this tool surfaces (use ver_premio), which is a behavioral boundary. It still says nothing about failure modes, e.g. what happens if the id refers to a closed call, and the returned field list largely duplicates the output schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its scope, with the routing hint at the end. It is dense and mostly telegraphic; the elliptical phrasing (missing finite verbs) makes it slightly harder to parse than plain prose, but no sentence 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only lookup with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what structured fields cannot: content scope and the closed-call alternative. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing, though the closed-call behavior could be stated more definitively.

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 id parameter is documented with examples in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds the provenance of the id (buscar_convocatorias), not format or validity rules beyond what the schema states.

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?

It states precisely which resource is returned ('Una convocatoria abierta entera, por su id') and enumerates the payload (plazo, dotación, quién puede presentarse, cuota, extensión, condiciones, bases). The verb is only implicit (title supplies 'Ver'), and the sentence is a noun phrase rather than a full clause, but an agent can still distinguish it from siblings at a glance.

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?

It names where the id comes from ('de buscar_convocatorias') and routes the agent to a specific alternative for a specific case: 'De una que ya cerró, su premio con ver_premio.' Both the prerequisite and the when-not-to-use path are explicit.

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