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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the article is auto-regenerated when new material arrives, and it returns probe data whose recency matters ('ultimas_apariciones: lo más nuevo donde aparece (puede ser posterior al artículo)'), plus citations carrying the tool needed to open each source. That freshness caveat is real context beyond the structured fields.

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-loaded: purpose in the first sentence, usage in the second, then an indented list of the extra payload. The bullet block is somewhat long, but each item (citas, enlaces, mencionada_en, ultimas_apariciones, tareas_abiertas) describes a distinct return field, so it earns its space.

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 must carry the return-shape burden, and it does: it enumerates the article contents and every extra field returned, including the source list behind citation markers. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 parameters (entity_id, workspace_id) are fully documented in the schema, including the hint to source entity_id 'de recall o search_entities' and the workspace_name fallback. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail, so the 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 precise verb+resource: the WIKI article for one entity (persona, proyecto, organización, etiqueta), enumerating its scope (qué es, historia, estado actual, gente involucrada) and noting it is regenerated from all workspace material. This clearly separates it from generic siblings like get_entity_details, recall, or search_entities.

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 explicit use cases ('Es la mejor fuente para "¿qué es X?", "¿en qué está X?", "¿quién está en X?"'), which tells an agent when this tool is the right pick. However it never names an alternative tool (e.g. get_entity_details or recall) or states when NOT to use it, so it stays at clear-context rather than full routing.

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