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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is low. The description adds two things beyond them: the required auth scope `notas:read` and the fact that a URL may only become available 'cuando esté listo', implying an asynchronous readiness state.

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, front-loaded with the tool's function, then the auth prerequisite. No wasted words, though it is terse rather than richly structured.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, yet the description still usefully flags the URL/PDF payload. Auth scope is included. Missing only the explicit workflow position relative to nota_simple_pedir.

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 schema documents pedido_id as the identifier returned by nota_simple_pedir. The description adds no further parameter detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource and outcome: the status of a 'nota simple registral' order plus the URL to view or download the PDF. An agent can tell it apart from nota_simple_pedir (which creates orders) and notas_simples_listar (which lists them), though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Provides a real prerequisite ('Requiere cuenta (scope `notas:read`)'), which is useful gating context. However, it never states when to call it rather than alternatives — e.g. that it is the polling step after nota_simple_pedir — leaving the workflow relationship implicit.

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