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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the result is 'completo' and includes 'líneas de actuación', which is useful content information, but it says nothing about behavior on a non-existent id, access permissions, size/volume of the returned payload, or whether the read is side-effect free.

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 short sentence with the key information (single expedient, by id, includes lines) front-loaded and no filler. Brevity is appropriate for a lookup tool, though it comes at the cost of missing guidance rather than padding.

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?

The tool is simple (one required id, read operation, no output schema or annotations), and the description covers what it returns well enough to call it. It still leaves the mutation-free/error behavior and relationship to the list/search siblings unstated, which are the main open questions for an agent.

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 0%, but there is only a single required integer parameter whose name ('id') is self-evident and whose role the description confirms ('por id'). No format, range, or example values are added beyond what the schema already shows.

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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Obtiene') and resource ('un expediente completo') and adds scope detail that the tool returns the expedient's action lines as well. It implicitly separates itself from expedients_list / expedients_search by saying retrieval is 'por id', though it never names those alternatives.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over expedients_list, expedients_search, or expedients_upcoming, and no prerequisites or preconditions stated. The agent must infer from the name and 'por id' that this is a single-record lookup.

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