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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description adds behavior they do not cover: result ordering, inclusion of retracted entries (tombstones), the scope being all capsules unless filtered, and the paging contract via `hay_mas`. This is substantive disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by fallback and pagination rules; every clause carries information. Slight compression loss from packing ordering, scope, tombstones, and paging into one long first sentence.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-contract burden and does: `siguiente` and `hay_mas` are explained along with the loop condition. Combined with ordering, tombstone inclusion, and default scoping, an agent has everything needed to drive the sync correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented, including `cursor` as 'the `siguiente` of the previous call'. The description restates that cursor/`dias` relationship and the capsule filtering but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail the schema lacks, so baseline 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?

Names a specific resource and operation: syntheses published or corrected since a cursor, in oldest-to-newest order, plus the identifiers of withdrawn entries. The 'para sistemas que se mantienen al día' framing makes the incremental-sync intent distinct from a general search, though it never names a sibling tool 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?

Gives a clear operating context ('for systems that stay current'), a fallback path (no cursor → start `dias` days back), and an explicit continuation rule (if `hay_mas` is true, call again with `siguiente`). It lacks an explicit 'do not use for X, use `buscar`/`novedades` instead' exclusion, so it stops short of a 5.

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