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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that only published professionals are returned ('publicado') and lists the content categories, providing useful behavioral context beyond just stating the operation.

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 sentence with all key information front-loaded: action, resource, identifier, and content scope. There is no filler or redundant detail.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and response content. It does not address edge cases like not-found behavior or slug format, but is sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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 has no description for the slug parameter (0% coverage). The description mentions 'por su slug' but does not explain what a slug is or how to obtain one, leaving the agent to infer the format from domain knowledge.

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 tool retrieves a complete professional profile by slug, enumerating included content (links, fields, techniques, entities, projects). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like obtener_entidad and buscar_profesionales.

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 a slug is known (por su slug) but does not explicitly contrast with buscar_profesionales or other retrieval tools. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving some ambiguity.

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