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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that it returns the *full* content (implying search returns partial results), but says nothing about missing-id behavior or error handling.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource, the operation, and the key parameter semantics with zero filler.

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 tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. The only gap is the not-found/error case, which is minor here.

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 0% and `id` is an untyped bare string, so the description carries the burden — and it does, clarifying that the id is either a note slug or a verification code. That meaningfully narrows what would otherwise be an opaque string.

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 (trae) and resource (contenido completo de un resultado de search), and anchors it to the `search` sibling by describing what it operates on. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with `verificar` or `oraculo`, but the retrieval-of-search-result framing is clear.

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?

Naming 'un resultado de search' gives clear context: this is the follow-up call after a search returns a hit. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternate-tool routing is provided, but the usage path is unambiguous for this small toolset.

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