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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine value by disclosing the shape of the answer (estado HTTP, mensaje, cuando ocurre, que hacer, si se reintenta), which matters because there is no output schema. It says nothing about rate limits or catalog coverage limits.

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 sentences, both load-bearing: the first defines the tool and its output, the second pre-empts the most likely parameter mistake. Front-loaded with the core purpose and no filler.

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 one required parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description supplies everything needed: what it returns, what the input means, and how it differs from the HTTP status. Nothing required to invoke 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% and there is only one parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by disambiguating that 'codigo' is the field from the error body, not the HTTP status, and by giving concrete format examples (three digits, 302/401) — exactly the ambiguity an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Explica un codigo de error del catalogo de la API') and scopes it precisely to three-digit catalog codes such as 302 or 401. It also enumerates what the explanation contains (HTTP status, message, trigger, action, retry). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling documentation tools, which keeps it at a 4.

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: an agent should reach for this when it holds an error code from the catalog. There is no statement of when not to use it or which sibling tool covers adjacent questions (e.g., general API docs). Adequate but with a clear gap.

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