get_code_description

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the disclosure burden. It only states that the tool retrieves a description; it does not mention what happens when a code is not found, whether it searches across multiple types, what the output format is, or any potential side effects. The simple verb 'obtiene' implies a read, but behavioral context is minimal.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Obtiene,' and contains no redundant wording. It could include more detail about code types or return values without bloating, but as written it is clean and 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description alone must convey what the tool returns and how it behaves. It does not explain what the 'description' contains, how the search works without a code_type, or how this tool relates to the sibling table tools. Users are left with only a minimal high-level statement.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters fully: code includes examples ('7723', '1300') and code_type has an enum with the note that it speeds up searching. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no extra parameter semantics, and the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Obtiene la descripción de un código específico' (gets the description of a specific code). It identifies the resource (code description) and the operation, but it doesn't differentiate from sibling table-listing tools or specify which code domains are covered, so it falls short of 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The schema's note that code_type 'acelera la búsqueda' hints at usage, but the description itself offers no when/when-not or alternative tool references, leaving the selection process to inference.

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