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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no notes on batch-size limits, behavior for missing IDs, or permission requirements. It discloses no trait that the annotations and schema do not already provide.

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?

It is a single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is not verbose. However, the sentence is essentially redundant with the title, so its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

The tool is low-complexity, an output schema exists (so return values need no explanation), and the annotations cover safety — but the description still omits the one thing that matters most for selection: how this differs from odoo_search_read and when to prefer reading by ID over searching. It is not adequate to route an agent reliably.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter (ids, model, fields) with its own description and defaults. The prose adds no meaning on top of the schema, which establishes the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 "Lee registros por ID" is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool title "Read records by ID", with no added scope or distinguishing detail. It does not differentiate this tool from the sibling odoo_search_read, which is presumably the other way to retrieve records.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. valid model names, record permissions), and no reference to alternatives such as odoo_search_read or odoo_fields_get. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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