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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine scope disclosure beyond that: 'sin documentos, IA, perfil ni veredictos' tells the agent which data this record deliberately excludes, which matters when choosing between this lean view and a fuller one.

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 the retrieval key front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient and scannable, though the exclusion list is compressed to the point of being terse.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the definition should describe what the record contains; it only describes what it omits. Listing the excluded sections implies the shape of the return value but never states it positively, leaving a gap for a tool whose output is undefined.

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?

Only one parameter exists and its schema declares type string with format uuid, so the description's 'por UUID' largely restates the schema's format field. It does confirm the identifier semantics, but adds no syntax, sourcing, or failure-mode detail; with 0% schema description coverage the description only partially compensates.

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 resource (ficha pública de licitación) and the retrieval key (UUID), which distinguishes it implicitly from the search sibling buscar_licitaciones. It never names the sibling or explicitly contrasts retrieve-vs-search, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

The phrase 'por UUID' implies the tool is used once a specific licitación identifier is known, which is useful usage context. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to buscar_licitaciones as the alternative path for finding that UUID.

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