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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that by saying 'reads'. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what the annotation provides—no mention of what happens with invalid IDs, whether fields are returned, or any error behavior. Since annotations carry the safety profile, the description fails to enrich it with extra useful details.

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?

The description is a single short sentence that is efficient and front-loaded with the core action. It has no filler or redundant phrases. While it is extremely brief, it is appropriately concise for a simple read operation, earning a high score on conciseness alone.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description is minimal. It lacks any explanation of when to use it, what the fields parameter does, or how it differs from search_read. An agent might infer usage, but for completeness, it should provide at least a hint about the intended context. The tool is simple, but the description leaves important usage nuances unstated.

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 all three parameters (model, ids, fields) are already described in the schema. The description only says 'read by ID', which is implicit and doesn't add meaningful detail beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description contributes no extra semantic value.

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 ('Lee' = reads) and resource ('registros por ID' = records by ID). It clearly differentiates from siblings like odoo_create, odoo_write, and odoo_unlink, which are mutations, and from odoo_search_read, which implies search rather than direct ID access. However, it doesn't mention the model parameter, which is a key part of the operation, so it's not perfect.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like odoo_search_read. It doesn't state that this is for fetching by known IDs, while search_read is for querying. No exclusions or context are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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