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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it returns full fragment TEXT rather than snippets, searches by MEANING+text so wording mismatches still match, spans ALL of a user's workspaces when no workspace_id is given, and each result carries an `abrir` field pointing at the exact tool to open the full source.

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 with the core purpose, then a clearly structured breakdown of the three result families and closing notes on scoping and depth. Length is justified by the tool's multi-part output, though the list formatting is slightly heavier than strictly necessary.

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 fully carries the burden of explaining what comes back — pasajes, entidades with their wiki/tasks/last-seen, tareas with current state, and the `abrir` routing field — and it covers scoping, depth, and example intents. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics beyond the schema: profundidad is explained with concrete result counts (rapida ~6 pasajes, normal default, profunda 20 pasajes + wikis enteros) and workspace_id's cross-workspace omission behavior is spelled out. Only desde/hasta get no extra description treatment.

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 ('Contesta una pregunta con todo lo que el workspace sabe') and then enumerates the three result families (pasajes/entidades/tareas) with what each contains. An agent can immediately tell this is a unified semantic+text retrieval tool rather than a plain document search, distinguishing it from siblings like search_documents or find_documents.

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?

Provides concrete example questions ('¿en qué quedó lo de Visa?', '¿qué tengo pendiente con Banorte?') and explains the cross-workspace default when workspace_id is omitted, plus the depth tradeoff. It does not explicitly say when to prefer it over search_workspace/search_documents, so the routing guidance is implicit rather than stated.

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