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

With readOnlyHint/destructiveHint already declaring safety, the description adds substantial non-obvious context: it returns `updated_at` for optimistic-locking via `base_version` (writes fail rather than overwrite), and `perdidas` lists what markdown cannot represent and blocks patch_document/append_document when non-empty. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs and cannot get from annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, then organized by parameter/mode with clear headings. It is somewhat long, but the length is justified by the several modes and formats; little is redundant.

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 carries the burden of describing the return surface, and it does: content format, `updated_at`, and `perdidas` with their consequences. Combined with the annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully enriches the two key parameters: it spells out what each `format` value means and which are accepted by write tools, and clarifies `buscar` returns only matching fragments. It adds little for `contexto` and `workspace_id` beyond the schema, keeping it below 5.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Lee un documento') and states the default behavior precisely (returns markdown, once, without duplication). It references sibling write tools (create/update/patch/append, patch_document, append_document), but does not distinguish itself from the read-side siblings like get_documents, find_documents, or search_documents, which is the main ambiguity an agent would face.

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 concrete when-to-use guidance: use `buscar` on a long document to find out WHAT to change with patch_document, and use 'markdown' because it is what the write tools accept. It explains the role of 'crudo' as rarely needed. It lacks explicit routing against the other document-read/search siblings, but the internal guidance is strong.

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