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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, idempotent, read-only check. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the required auth scope (`notas:read`) and the conditional nature of the return (URL only appears once the PDF is ready), which the annotations do not cover.

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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the outcome and followed by the auth constraint. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded, though it is terse enough to border on under-specification.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, an output schema that carries the return shape, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to add the auth scope and readiness condition, which it does. Nothing materially required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 `pedido_id` parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including that it comes from `nota_simple_pedir`. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb-and-resource: it returns the status of a nota simple request plus the URL to view or download the PDF once ready. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling nota_simple_pedir (which creates the request), though it does not name 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent must infer this is the tool to poll after calling nota_simple_pedir. It does surface the precondition of an account with scope `notas:read`, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternative routing.

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