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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation (it says 'lee' which is read). It adds the context that search and read are combined in a single call, which is useful. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like pagination or default limits, which are covered by the schema. Since annotations already cover the read-only safety profile, the description adds minimal but non-contradictory context.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While it is efficient, it might be slightly too terse, but for conciseness it scores well.

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 tool with 6 parameters and a sibling tool (odoo_read) that likely overlaps in functionality, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to select it correctly. It does not explain when to use this tool over odoo_read, nor any edge cases. The schema and annotations cover parameters and read-only, but the description lacks usage scenario guidance, making it incomplete for an agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters; it only mentions 'busca y lee' without referencing specific parameters or their semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clear action (search and read) and resource (Odoo records), but it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'odoo_read' which likely also reads records. The phrase 'en una sola llamada' hints at combining operations, but it is not explicit enough to distinguish it from a plain read.

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_read, odoo_search_count, or odoo_fields_get. No conditions, exclusions, or context for selection are provided.

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