Spec OpenAPI crudo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the payload equals the canonical document at the api-docs URL, but says nothing about payload size, cost, or caching behavior – meaningful for a tool that returns an entire spec.

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, zero waste: the what and scope come first, the canonical-URL reference and use cases follow. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 does carry the return burden and adequately says it returns the complete OpenAPI 3.1 document. It omits any note on payload size or when fetching the whole contract is preferable to per-endpoint calls, a minor gap for this complexity level.

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 the single version parameter already carries a full inline description with enum guidance (v2 recommended, v1 for legacy). The description's 'v2 por default' restates the schema rather than adding format or edge-case detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Devuelve el documento OpenAPI 3.1 completo de la API') with explicit scope (full spec, not a fragment), which distinguishes it from fragment-oriented siblings like list_endpoints and get_endpoint. It stops short of naming an alternative directly, so sibling differentiation is strong but implicit.

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 concrete use cases ('Útil para generar clientes o cargar el contrato entero'), which tells the agent when this tool is the right choice over endpoint-level siblings. No explicit when-not or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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