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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the return shape (full page as text plus title and URL), which matters since no output schema exists, but says nothing about rate limits, auth, or page-size limits.

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, no filler, with the return behavior front-loaded and the accepted input forms following. Every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description covers what is returned and what inputs are accepted, which is close to complete. It stops short of clarifying behavior for pages outside the listed entity types or any content truncation.

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 100% and the single parameter's schema text ("Id de search, ruta o URL de misslicita.com") is essentially duplicated in the description. The description does enrich it slightly by enumerating target types (guía, documento, proceso, entidad), but that is marginal over the schema baseline.

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 en texto") and resource ("una página pública completa de MissLicita") plus scope ("con su título y URL"), so the agent knows it retrieves raw page content. It references the sibling `search` as the id source, but never distinguishes itself from structured siblings like `ficha_empresa` or `ficha_entidad`, which likely cover overlapping targets.

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?

"Acepta el id que da search" implies a workflow (search first, then fetch), which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the ficha_* siblings that also return entity/company information, so the choice is left to inference.

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