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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by specifying the return payload format (full markdown text) — especially useful since there is no output schema — and by disclosing the slug dependency. It omits error behavior when a slug is missing, keeping it from a 5.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and return type before the input source. Every clause earns its place: what is returned, in what format, for which two content types, and where the slug comes from.

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 read-only fetch tool with annotations covering its safety profile and no output schema, the description states the return format, the input origin, and the two content variants — enough to invoke it correctly. The only gap is error/edge behavior (invalid or nonexistent slug), which is minor for this tool class.

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?

With 50% schema coverage, the description compensates by clarifying what the two content kinds are: 'una landing por rubro' versus 'un artículo del blog', which maps onto the otherwise-undocumented 'blog'/'locales' enum values. The slug parameter's meaning is also reinforced by tying it to search_content/list_pages, though exact enum-to-value mapping is left implicit.

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: 'Devuelve el texto completo en markdown' of either a landing-by-category or a blog article, keyed by slug. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming search_content and list_pages as the tools that supply the slug, implying the search-then-fetch workflow, though it stops short of an explicit contrast (e.g. 'unlike search_content, returns the whole document').

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 parenthetical '(lo dan search_content y list_pages)' tells the agent exactly when this tool is the follow-up step: after obtaining a slug from one of those feeders. There is no explicit when-not guidance or exclusion rule, so it falls short of a 5, but the sequencing context is clear.

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