blog

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's '(solo lectura)' mostly repeats structured data. It does add useful scoping context by specifying published and public posts, but it omits ordering guarantees, default limit behavior, and whether unpublished or private posts are ever included.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that is efficient and easy to parse. The parenthetical '(solo lectura)' is slightly redundant given the annotations, but overall the sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list operation with two optional, fully documented parameters, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly. The lack of an output schema means return shape is not specified, but for this tool's complexity that is a minor gap.

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%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema with ranges and an enum. The description adds no additional meaning about how limit or post_type interact with the 'latest published public' filtering, leaving it at the baseline.

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 and resource: it returns the latest published and public blog posts. This clearly differentiates it from get_post (single post) and search_posts (search) by emphasizing recency and public visibility, though siblings are not named 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?

Usage is implied by 'últimas entradas' and the public/published filter, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus search_posts or get_post. An agent can infer the use case but must reason about alternatives without direct instruction.

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=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'solo lectura' merely restates structured data. The description does add one real behavioral constraint — only published and public posts are returned — which usefully warns that drafts/private posts are out of scope, but it says nothing about the resulting error or empty result in that case.

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 wasted clauses; the resource, the lookup key, the visibility constraint, and the read-only nature are all packed in compactly.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description covers purpose and scope adequately. The only meaningful gap is what happens for a non-public, unpublished, or nonexistent ID.

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% with a single documented 'id' parameter, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only echoes 'por su ID' without adding format, type, or validity constraints, which is the baseline expectation when the schema is complete.

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 (devuelve) and resource (entrada) plus a scope qualifier (publicada y pública, por su ID) that implicitly separates it from get_latest_posts and search_posts. Sibling differentiation is achieved by the scope wording, though the alternatives are never named.

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 phrase 'por su ID' implies the precondition of already knowing a post ID, which is the natural selection rule versus search_posts. However, it never explicitly says when to use this instead of search_posts or get_latest_posts, nor what to do when only a title/slug is known.

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=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful behavioral constraint by specifying that results are limited to 'publicadas y públicas' (published and public) posts, but it does not clarify pagination behavior, result ordering, or what a match looks like.

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 scope constraint ('publicadas y públicas') and read-only nature are stated before any elaboration, and nothing is repeated unnecessarily.

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 straightforward search tool with rich schema documentation, explicit annotations, and three well-named siblings, the description gives enough context to call it correctly. The only minor gap is the absence of any note on result ordering or pagination behavior, though page/per_page are documented in the schema.

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%, so all four parameters (query, page, per_page, post_type) are already documented in the schema. The description only implies that the main input is a text query, adding no syntax, formatting, or filtering details beyond the schema; baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Busca') and resource ('entradas publicadas y públicas') with the search mode ('por texto'), which clearly separates it from get_post (single post) and get_latest_posts (chronological listing). It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated in-text.

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 phrase 'por texto' implies the tool is for text-based search, and 'solo lectura' signals a safe read operation, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no named alternatives, and no exclusion criteria (e.g., use get_latest_posts when you want recent posts without a query).

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