Explicar un código de error

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

Annotations cover read-only and open-world nature, so the base bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it's a stable public contract shared across API versions, and advises switching on the code. It also implies the catalog is comprehensive. Missing explicit statement about rate limits or caching, but sufficient given annotations.

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, front-loaded with what the tool does and what it returns, then adds the shared-contract caveat. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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?

Complete for a read-only lookup tool. With no output schema, the description appropriately lists the return fields, saving the agent from inference. It could optionally mention if results are paginated or if errors are returned for unknown codes, but for a simple catalog lookup it's sufficiently complete.

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 schema already documents both parameters (including description, case-insensitivity, and version enum with default). The description only adds the example input format and a reminder that code is case-insensitive via 'ej. E_RATE_LIMITED' and the switch note, but doesn't significantly expand on the parameters beyond 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 clear verb+resource ('explica un código de error') and elaborates on exactly what is returned: HTTP status, when it occurs, doc URL, and emitting endpoints. Distinguishes itself from siblings like get_endpoint or search_docs, which are about endpoints and docs, not error codes.

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 a specific context: input is the 'code' field from an RFC 7807 body, with an example. However, it doesn't explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternatives (e.g., 'para buscar códigos por texto, usá search_docs'). Context is clear but lacks alternative routing.

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