Emisoras de Colombia

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

Sin anotaciones, la descripción asume el peso de revelar el comportamiento: indica que devuelve 'total de coincidencias y una página de resultados' y detalla la taxonomía de géneros con mapeos (salsa→Tropical, reguetón→Urbana) y la estrategia de fallback para estilos no listados. Esto va más allá del esquema y es valioso.

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?

La descripción es larga pero bien organizada: comienza con el propósito, sigue con uso, luego retorno y terminología de géneros. Cada oración aporta información nueva; aunque podría acortarse, no es redundante.

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?

Dado que no hay esquema de salida, la descripción cubre el retorno ('total de coincidencias y una página de resultados') y explica el manejo de géneros ambiguos, lo que hace que la herramienta sea utilizable sin ambigüedad. Falta detallar la paginación pero es suficiente para el caso de uso.

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?

El esquema cubre el 100% de los parámetros, pero la descripción agrega contexto cultural y de dominio: aclara que las ciudades pueden llevar tilde, explica la semántica de 'genero' (solo los 10 listados) y cómo manejar estilos no catalogados (usar 'texto'), lo que facilita la correcta selección de parámetros.

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?

El verbo 'busca' junto con el recurso 'emisoras de radio colombianas' define claramente la acción y el objeto. Además, los ejemplos ('vallenato en Barranquilla') y la mención de parámetros de búsqueda (ciudad, género, frecuencia, texto) lo distinguen de los hermanos 'escuchar' y 'ver_emisora'.

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?

Proporciona una condición de uso explícita ('Usala cuando alguien pida escuchar radio de Colombia sin nombrar una emisora exacta') con ejemplos concretos. No menciona alternativas directamente, pero la diferencia con los hermanos es implícita por su naturaleza de búsqueda.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the returned address is permanent and redirects to the current signal, and warns that the source link may expire. This adds important behavioral context beyond any schema, explaining persistence and redirect behavior.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the primary action, then adds a caveat about source expiry. It contains zero fluff and every sentence adds value—coverencing purpose, usage, and a critical warning in two sentences.

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?

The tool has only one parameter and no output schema, and the description covers what it returns, when to use it, and a key caveat. It lacks error handling or return-format details, but for a simple retrieval that returns a URL, it is sufficiently complete given annotations are absent.

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 100%, and the single parameter slug is already well-defined as the station identifier from buscar_emisoras. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond that, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool returns a stable streaming address for a live station, which is a specific verb+resource purpose. It distinguishes itself from siblings like buscar_emisoras (searching) and ver_emisora (viewing details) by focusing on obtaining the playable URL.

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 provides explicit when-to-use ('usala cuando el usuario quiera escuchar') and also warns against using the source signal directly. However, it lacks any mention of alternatives (e.g., when not to use this tool) relative to siblings, though the instruction to use it for listening is clear.

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?

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers excellent context: it enumerates the result fields (ciudad, dial, genero, cadena, sitio oficial) and identifies the response includes both descriptive data and streaming URL. While it doesn't discuss auth, rate limits, or errors, the 'ficha completa' plus the return list gives an agent confidence in what to expect.

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 concise, information-dense sentences in Spanish. First sentence handles the purpose and returns; second handles the usage context. Zero fluff, perfectly sized for an agent to read quickly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no nested schemas, no output schema) and the completeness of the description plus parameter documentation, it's essentially complete. Rating 4 instead of 5 because the description could have briefly noted error behavior (e.g., invalid slug) — but for a single-record fetch with well-documented parameters, this is nearly perfect.

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 100% — the 'slug' parameter already has an excellent description noting it's the identifier from 'buscar_emisoras'. The description text reinforces this by specifying the expected format ('tal como lo devuelve buscar_emisoras'). There are no additional parameter semantics needed. Slightly penalizing for not being at 5 since it could have mentioned whether the slug is case-sensitive, but the description is already doing schema's work.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Devuelve') and resource ('ficha completa de una emisora'), listing the exact data fields (ciudad, dial, genero, cadena, sitio oficial, descripcion, direccion de escucha) and when to use it (when you already have a slug). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings: it complements buscar_emisoras (which finds slugs) and escuchar (which plays).

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 explicitly states 'Usala cuando ya tengas el slug de una emisora', directly telling the agent when to call this tool. It also references the sibling tool 'buscar_emisoras' as the source of the slug, establishing a clear workflow and implicitly ruling out usage when seeking stations.

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