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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive safety, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value by explaining that the 'content' field is the serialized whiteboard state — useful since there is no output schema — though it omits return format details like size or pagination.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by a clarifying note about the content field. No wasted text.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by explaining what the returned 'content' holds, and annotations cover the safety profile. It is largely sufficient for a single-resource read tool, missing only minor format expectations.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both canvas_id and the workspace_id semantics are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that; 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Obtiene un canvas') and clarifies it returns the complete content (nodes/edges JSON). It contrasts implicitly with get_canvases (plural list) and create/update/delete_canvas, but never names those siblings to differentiate explicitly.

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 is implied by the verb and the returned content, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to get_canvases for listing vs. this single-fetch. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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