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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description does add something annotations cannot: it discloses the shape of the returned content (full synthesis, summary, "por qué importa" when present, source links), which matters since there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about failure behavior for an invalid id/capsula or whether the synthesis can be partial.

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, dense sentence with no filler, and the core notion (complete reviewed synthesis) is front-loaded. It is a sentence fragment without a main verb, which slightly weakens how quickly the purpose parses. No redundancy or padding present.

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 two-required-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers what comes back, which is the most important missing piece. It omits, however, the read/retrieve framing itself and any signal about when this tool is the right choice versus `buscar`, `novedades`, or `capsulas`. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool whose whole job is returning a single item.

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 both parameters are documented in-schema, including the `n-...` id format and the `buscar`/`novedades` provenance, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no additional meaning about `capsula` or `id` beyond the schema. Nothing is lost, but nothing is added.

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 is a noun phrase describing the payload ("una síntesis revisada entera... con su resumen... y los enlaces a sus fuentes") rather than a verb+resource statement of what the tool does. It implicitly signals a single-item detail fetch as opposed to a list, but the action itself is only carried by the title ("Leer una noticia"), not the description. The agent can guess the purpose but must infer it.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite siblings like `buscar`, `novedades`, and `capsulas` that plausibly retrieve news items in other ways. The only related hints (id comes from `buscar` or `novedades`) live in the schema, not the description. The agent gets no explicit routing signal from the description text.

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