Hostbrid Discovery

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: result cap of five, canonical links as output, no full-text return, and a special exact-query behavior for MCP and Model Context Protocol that also surfaces ChatGPT mentions. These details help the agent predict outputs and 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and result limit, followed by special behavior, scope, and exclusions. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.

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 simple one-parameter search tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return context (canonical links, max five, no full text) and clear scope exclusions. An agent has enough to invoke it 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, but the description adds useful meaning by specifying that the query searches across title, summary, tags, and content and by describing special exact-phrase behavior. It does not define query syntax or ranking, so it is not a 5.

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 and resource: searches up to five public Hostbrid guides by title, summary, tags, or content and returns canonical links. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool hostbrid_listar_planes_publicos, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear usage context and an exclusion: only published material is consulted, full text is not returned, and it should not be used for account data or private articles. It does not name an alternative tool for those excluded cases, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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 the description adds real value beyond them: a hard result cap of twenty, a staleness disclaimer ('no garantiza disponibilidad'), and an explicit statement that it never purchases or changes a subscription. That volatility caveat is exactly the kind of behavior an agent could otherwise get wrong.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the capability, then the filter/limit, then the negative-scope caveats. Dense but every clause carries information; nothing is 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 no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields (recurring price, setup price, period, installments, offer link), and it covers scope, filtering, limits and non-capabilities. An agent has what it needs to call this correctly, though envelope/pagination details beyond the cap are left implicit.

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%, with both the enum filter and the limite bound fully documented in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description echoes the resource-type filter and the twenty-item cap without adding syntax or format detail beyond what is already structured, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('Lista') plus resource ('planes activos y publicados en el catálogo comercial de Hostbrid'), and enumerates what each plan carries (recurring price, setup price, period, installments, offer link). The scope ('activos y publicados') and the sibling (a guide search tool) make it unmistakable which tool to pick.

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?

Explains the filtering option, the 20-item cap, and explicitly draws boundaries: it does not calculate discounts, does not guarantee availability, and does not buy or modify subscriptions, directing the agent to confirm via the link. It stops short of naming an alternative tool when a different need arises, so it is clear context plus exclusions rather than full routing.

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