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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond restating the purpose: no note on whether unfiltered calls return all workspaces, how 'definitions' are composed, or any rate/size behavior.

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 short sentence with no filler, though its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficient density.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and an undefined core concept ('definiciones'), the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what a definition record contains or how results differ when entity_id is applied, and there is no output shape to fall back on.

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 limit/offset/entity_id/workspace_id are all documented in the schema itself. The description's only contribution is echoing the optional entity filter, which the schema already states more precisely (including the 'omit = ALL workspaces' behavior). 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?

It states a verb and resource ('Obtiene las definiciones del workspace'), but 'definiciones' is never defined and the tool overlaps conceptually with siblings like get_knowledge, get_playbook, get_guide, and get_entity_wiki, with nothing to distinguish them. The scope hint (workspace, optional entity filter) helps narrow it, but the core object of the tool remains ambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this rather than get_knowledge/get_playbook/get_entity_wiki, nor any prerequisite or exclusion stated. The phrase 'con filtro opcional por entidad' only hints at a filtering variant, not a usage decision.

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