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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered, and the description usefully adds that reviews are bundled into the response. It says nothing about what happens with an invalid or ambiguous slug, or whether the review list is truncated or paginated.

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: the resource and returned content come first, then the input format with a concrete example. Nothing is repeated from the title and nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

With one required parameter, no nested objects and no output schema, the description covers what the agent most needs: how to supply the identifier and what comes back (detail plus neighbor reviews). Only failure modes and review volume are left unaddressed, which is minor for a read-only lookup.

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% and the schema itself already says 'Slug o URL', so the description's explanation of what a slug is plus the worked example ('miguel-carpintero') adds only modest value over the structured field. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter definitions.

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 ('Detalle de un proveedor de la Guía Nordelta') and adds the returned payload ('con las reseñas de vecinos'), which no sibling would return. It does not name buscar_proveedores or listar_rubros, so the boundary with siblings is implied by the domain noun rather than made explicit.

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?

The accepted input forms (slug or full URL) are spelled out, which implicitly tells the agent this is a post-lookup detail call, but the description never says 'use after buscar_proveedores' or when NOT to use it. For a detail endpoint paired with a search sibling, the routing sentence is the one piece missing.

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