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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: token cost of each mode, that content responses also carry `bytes` and `sha256` for verification, and that 'buscar' reports the match count that matters before patching. This is genuinely useful operational detail.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then uses a compact bulleted structure to contrast the two modes; every claim (cost, paste-compatibility, occurrence count) earns its place. It is dense and slightly long, but not padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the return-value burden: metadata, version history, returned fragments, and the `bytes`/`sha256` fields when content is included. All six parameters are covered and the read-only nature is clear, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each field, establishing a baseline of 3. The description goes further by giving cross-tool semantics for 'buscar' (its output pastes directly into patch_artifact's `buscar`) and clarifying the literal-not-regex reading path, adding value beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Trae un artefacto') plus exactly what is fetched (metadata and version history), then enumerates the two content-retrieval modes. An agent can distinguish this from get_document, list_artifacts, or patch_artifact without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use guidance for each mode: 'buscar' is framed as the read-for-edit path with an explicit cost comparison (~800 vs 107,000 chars) and a direct hand-off to patch_artifact; 'incluir_contenido' is flagged as expensive and reserved for full reads. It does not, however, contrast the tool against adjacent retrieval siblings (get_document, list_artifacts) for tool-level choice.

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