ficha

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the returned content per id type (endpoints with example and response, sync, gotchas, steps, freshness, license, regex, cross-references) and the near-miss fallback on missing ids. That is meaningful output-content disclosure, but it never states read-only behaviour, whether any lookup is rate-limited or cached, or what the near-match response looks like structurally.

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?

It is a single dense run-on sentence with deeply nested parenthetical lists, so the core fact (returns detail for an id from buscar) is buried and the fallback behaviour is tacked on the end. Compact, but under-structured rather than efficient.

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 read lookup with no output schema, the description does cover the broad shape of returned data and the missing-id case, which is close to sufficient. It falls short on id formatting and on distinguishing this from the many topic-specific siblings, which an agent would need before choosing it.

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 0% for the single required 'id' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does add real semantics by enumerating the four kinds of ids accepted (source, recipe, product, identifier), implying the id is polymorphic and resolved by prefix/type; however it gives no format, syntax, or example values, leaving the agent to guess.

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 it returns detail for any 'id' produced by the sibling tool 'buscar', which does differentiate it from a plain search. However, the phrasing ('Detalle de cualquier id de buscar') is dense jargon and the enumerated categories (fuente, receta, producto, identificador) are opaque without domain knowledge, so an agent must infer what 'detail' actually means.

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 only implied: the id is described as coming from 'buscar', suggesting this is a follow-up lookup tool. The fallback behaviour ('Si no existe, ids parecidos') is a useful hint, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus siblings like 'codigos' or 'empresa_nif', nor any stated exclusions.

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