Jefe para restaurantes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description needn't repeat it. The word 'publicado' adds a small behavioral hint that unpublished slugs likely won't resolve, but nothing about failure behavior or auth is stated.

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 with no filler; the verb leads and the scope follows. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, but nothing is wasted.

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?

Complexity is low (one required string, closed-world, idempotent read) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, with three sibling getters/searchers and no routing or failure guidance, an agent has to guess which tool to reach for for a given slug.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for the single parameter — yet 'para un slug' only restates the parameter name. The pattern (lowercase kebab-case) and 160-char limit living in the schema are never acknowledged, and the 'published' constraint on acceptable values is only implied.

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?

The description states a specific verb (devuelve) and resource (metadata canónica y Markdown) scoped to a published slug, so an agent can tell what comes back. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with siblings like search_jefe_guides or get_jefe_product, which is the only gap at this level.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (search_jefe_guides, list_jefe_resources), and no prerequisite statement. The only usable signal, that the slug must be published, is embedded in the purpose sentence rather than offered as routing advice.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is fully covered externally. The description adds only the content categories of the response, which is modest additional context for a no-argument read tool.

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 with no filler or restated boilerplate. Every listed term carries information about the returned payload.

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 zero parameters, complete annotations and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values or safety. What is missing is only usage routing against the sibling tools.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly spends no words on inputs.

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 ('Devuelve') and enumerates the exact payload: identity, coverage, capabilities, limits and official links. This clearly separates it from the guide/resource-oriented siblings (get_jefe_guide, list_jefe_resources, search_jefe_guides), though it never names them 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?

No statement of when to call this versus the three sibling tools, no prerequisites, no exclusions. The agent must infer from the payload wording that this is the metadata/overview endpoint.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond those annotations (no pagination, filtering, or return-shape notes), so it contributes little on this dimension.

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 with zero filler. The core action and the returned resources are stated immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the annotations carry the safety profile. For a zero-param read-only listing tool this is nearly complete, though it does not help an agent choose between this and its sibling tools.

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?

This tool takes zero parameters, so the schema-based baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify on the parameter front.

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?

The description gives a clear verb ('Lista') and resource ('recursos oficiales'), and enumerates the content types returned (documentación, contratos, páginas de confianza). It is specific about what it lists, but does not differentiate itself from the sibling get/search tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_jefe_guide, get_jefe_product, or search_jefe_guides, and no prerequisites or conditions stated. The only usage signal is implicit from the verb 'list'.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and a closed corpus (openWorldHint=false). The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them: the index covers only published guides, so drafts/unpublished items will never match. It says nothing about pagination via cursor or result ordering, so it remains a modest add-on rather than rich context.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero waste and the scoping constraint placed before any elaboration. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves the gaps noted in other dimensions unaddressed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a 4-parameter search with a cursor-based pagination loop and a category filter, the description gives no hint that limit/cursor drive paging or that category is an exact-match facet — an agent must infer the calling pattern from the schema alone.

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 75%, so the schema largely documents q, limit, and cursor itself; only 'limit' lacks an inline description. The description contributes no parameter meaning at all, so the baseline 3 for high coverage 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 specific verb (busca) and resource (guías publicadas del catálogo de Jefe) with an explicit scope limiter (únicamente). An agent can distinguish it from get_jefe_guide (retrieval of one guide) by implication, but the description never names siblings, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 only routing signal is that the search is restricted to published guides; there is no statement of when to choose this over get_jefe_guide or list_jefe_resources, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance. The published-only constraint describes scope, not usage context.

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