Describir un flujo de uso

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns a narrative guide rather than raw data, which is useful behavioral context, but does not describe format, length, or pagination of the returned guide. With annotations covering the safety angle, a 3 is appropriate.

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 tightly packed sentences with no filler, front-loading the core purpose and the only available option. Every phrase 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?

Given a read-only, no-required-params tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could mention that the guide is static or versioned, but nothing critical for an agent to call 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 both parameters have detailed enum descriptions, so the schema already documents semantics fully. The description only mentions the available flow value, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource (returns the narrative guide of an end-to-end API flow) which is distinct from siblings like get_endpoint or search_docs. It even names the currently available flow ('test-to-live') and what it does. However it does not explicitly contrast with siblings, which would be needed for 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?

It clearly signals when this tool is useful by stating the only flow available and calling it 'el flujo recomendado', implying its use for end-to-end guidance rather than single-endpoint lookups. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for individual endpoints).

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