get_departments_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Obtiene' implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, default filtering from active_only, or any potential side effects. This is minimal for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds meaning. Under-specification is handled in other dimensions, not here.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema fully documents parameters, but the description lacks any mention of return shape or usage context. There is no output schema, and the description says only 'gets the table', which is somewhat thin for an agent to know what to expect or when to use 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with clear explanations for limit, active_only, and search_term. The description itself adds no extra semantics beyond the fact that the table is of official department codes, so the baseline 3 is appropriate since 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Obtiene') and identifies the resource ('tabla de códigos de departamentos oficiales'). It is clear it retrieves the official department codes table, and this distinguishes it from sibling table getters like get_matters_table or get_scopes_table. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the similar search_departments_advanced tool.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_departments_advanced or other get_*_table tools. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, so the agent gets no decision support from the description.

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