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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and a closed world, so safety is covered. The description adds that output is Markdown and that section matching is by title, useful since no output schema exists; it omits what happens when the slug or section does not match.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the return format stated first and the sectioning behavior immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only, two-parameter retrieval tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers return format and section behavior adequately. Only error/not-found behavior is left unaddressed.

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%, so both parameters (slug accepting slug or URL, seccion as title fragment) are already fully documented. The description mostly restates the schema's matching semantics; the only marginal addition is the guidance about reading long guides per section.

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 una guia en Markdown', plus the section-scoping variant. It clearly separates itself from listar_guias by returning content rather than an index, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives contextual advice ('las guias largas conviene leerlas por seccion'), which tells the agent how to use the optional parameter. However, it never says when to prefer this over buscar_documentacion, consultar_referencia, or listar_guias, leaving cross-tool routing to inference.

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