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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only published reports are retrievable, which is a behavioral constraint. However, it does not disclose error handling (e.g., missing slug), required permissions, or the exact structure of the returned content. For a simple read operation, this is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's core functionality. There is no redundant information, and the key details (action, resource, identifier) are front-loaded.

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 retrieval tool, the description is fairly complete: it identifies the resource and how to retrieve it. However, the absence of an output schema and annotations means the description should ideally clarify the return format or error conditions. The phrase 'contenido completo' is vague, and there is no mention of behavior when no published report matches the slug.

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 defines 'slug' only as a string with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by indicating that the slug identifies the monthly report and that the report must be published. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it doesn't define slug format or validation.

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 clearly states the action ('Obtiene' / gets), the resource ('informe mensual' / monthly report), and the method ('por su slug' / by its slug). It also specifies 'contenido completo' and 'publicado', adding precision. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing specifically on monthly reports.

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 implies usage: when you have the slug of a monthly report, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'listar_informes_mensuales' for obtaining slugs, nor does it provide any exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios. Guidance is minimal and left to inference.

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