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 real context by disclosing that the data is a frozen demo asset, but it leaves the key behavioral question unanswered: whether a non-matching canonical_id returns the same frozen record or an error.

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 with the returned fields front-loaded, no filler. The second sentence is terse to the point of ambiguity, but it is not wasted space.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the description covers what is returned and that the data is demo-static. It is incomplete on the one thing an agent cannot infer elsewhere: the behavior when canonical_id does not match the frozen demo asset.

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 single parameter canonical_id is documented in the schema as a uuid from hotel_canonical.id. The description adds no meaning about this parameter — no guidance on acceptable ids or how they relate to the frozen demo identity — so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Ficha de IDENTIDAD del activo" states a specific resource and enumerates the returned fields (dirección, cadena, clase, llaves, año), which distinguishes it from get_compset, get_market and get_report. It stops short of an explicit verb and the qualifier "activo de muestra de la demo" muddies whether it works on any asset or only the demo one.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this to obtain identity attributes of an asset. The note that the identity is "fijada a un único activo congelado" hints at a scope restriction but never states when to prefer a sibling or what to do if the id is not the demo asset.

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