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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by describing what is returned in each mode (parameters, body, responses, schemas), which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the mode behavior. No filler or redundancy; every clause carries information.

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 full parameter coverage and no output schema, the description reasonably closes the gap by naming the returned content. It omits error/failure behavior and the shape of the endpoint listing, but is largely sufficient to invoke the tool correctly.

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. The description goes beyond the per-parameter schema by explaining the interaction semantics: no ruta yields the endpoint listing, and ruta with metodo yields the detailed contract.

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 action on a specific resource: querying the API's OpenAPI contract. It also clarifies the two output modes (list endpoints vs. detail for a route). It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like buscar_documentacion or leer_guia.

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 description implies how to use it (omit ruta to list endpoints, supply ruta/metodo for details) but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over the documentation siblings. Usage is inferable rather than directed.

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