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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the return format (full page, markdown), which is genuinely useful. However it says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown slug, pagination/truncation, or how locale affects the result.

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 front-loaded sentence: verb, resource, format, then the addressing key with illustrative examples. No filler and nothing that fails to earn its place.

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 low-complexity two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the core (what is returned and how it is addressed) but omits locale semantics and any error/not-found behavior, leaving the agent to guess at those aspects.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for slug by giving concrete format examples («api/autenticacion», «configurar»), but the second parameter, locale (with its enum), is never mentioned and its default/effect is left undocumented.

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 (devuelve), resource (una página completa de la documentación), output format (markdown) and addressing key (por su slug). This cleanly distinguishes it from list_docs/search_docs by implying single-document retrieval, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the slug-addressing scheme signals 'use this when you already know the exact slug,' which implicitly routes users without a slug toward search_docs or list_docs. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. the three siblings and no stated prerequisites.

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