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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful return-content context (texto, precio, disponibilidad, enlace) but discloses no further behavioral traits such as auth needs, rate limits, or caching. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the get_game equivalence note. The equivalence sentence is short but slightly confusing, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 simple read-only detail tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields and ties the id to a prior search, which is enough for correct invocation. The equivalence to get_game is the only unresolved point and could mislead an agent about which sibling to call.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the id's provenance ('El id que devolvió search') but adds no syntax or format detail, and it never mentions the country/store parameter. Baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: retrieve the full card of a search result by its id, listing the fields returned (texto, precio, disponibilidad, enlace). However, the closing note 'Equivale a get_game' blurs sibling differentiation by telling the agent this is essentially the same as an existing sibling rather than contrasting the two.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'El id que devolvió search' ties the call to a prior search invocation, so the workflow context is inferable. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing between this tool and get_game, which the description declares equivalent.

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