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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers meaningfully: it discloses that results are reported per MX server, that the payload concerns hybrid-exchange acceptance, and it enumerates the lifecycle states (pendiente, tomado, hecho, sin_respuesta), which tells the agent results may not be ready yet and it may need to re-check. It does not cover error behavior for an unknown/expired id or how states transition over time, so it stops short of 5.

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 front-loads the return content, then covers the per-server scope, the hybrid criterion, and the state enumeration. Nothing is redundant, though the packed clause structure makes it slightly harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers what comes back (per-MX result plus state values) and when it is relevant. Remaining gaps — polling cadence and behavior on an invalid id — are minor, but they are the kind of detail an agent would still have to discover by calling it.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, and the schema already states it is 'the id returned by medir_exposicion_pqc'. The description only reinforces that same linkage, adding no format or validity constraints beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description states a specific resource — the post-quantum encryption measurement result for an email, broken down per MX server — and explicitly ties it to medir_exposicion_pqc as the tool that started the measurement, which separates it from that sibling. The verb is implicit ('Resultado de la medición') rather than stated as an action, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 context is clear: this is the follow-up read after medir_exposicion_pqc, and the required id is the one that tool returned. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives, but for a paired measure/read workflow the sequencing is unambiguous.

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