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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that the response contains 'texto completo para adaptar', i.e. full adaptable text rather than just references, but says nothing about response size or caching.

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 leads with the return payload and purpose. Slightly padded by enumerating all five enum values, which the schema already exposes, but it costs little 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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the definition is close to sufficient: it identifies the resource and confirms that full text is returned. The remaining gap is routing versus 'buscar_plantilla', which an agent would have to guess.

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 'tipo' parameter is a fully-documented enum, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's list of document types merely restates the enum values rather than adding format or selection guidance beyond them, so 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?

States a specific verb (Devuelve) and resource (modelos de un documento laboral) and enumerates the five document types, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling 'buscar_plantilla', which plausibly covers overlapping ground.

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 description says what is returned but never states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as 'buscar_plantilla', nor any prerequisite (e.g., that the 'tipo' must be one of the supported types). Usage is only implied by the enumeration.

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