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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by stating the response includes 'campos, técnicas y proyectos asociados' and that only published entities are returned, but it does not describe behavior for invalid slugs, error handling, or authentication. It is moderately transparent but not fully comprehensive.

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, concise sentence that immediately communicates the action, target resource, key qualifiers, and response contents. No filler or redundancy.

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 1-parameter fetch-by-slug tool, the description adequately covers the core purpose and the expected response content. It lacks details on not-found behavior or error handling, but given the tool's simplicity and the lack of annotations or output schema, it is largely complete.

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?

The schema provides only a parameter name ('slug') and type with no description, and the description merely repeats 'por su slug' without explaining what a slug is, its expected format, or how to obtain it. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate by adding meaningful parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Obtiene la ficha completa de una entidad') and clarifies the scope ('por su slug') and content ('con campos, técnicas y proyectos asociados'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the buscar_* search tools and the other obtener_* detail tools by targeting generic entities.

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?

The description clearly implies usage when you already know the entity's slug and need the complete record, which differentiates it from search tools like buscar_entidades. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so exclusions and alternatives are missing.

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