Listar casos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: results are ordered most-recent-first and the call is paginated, which the annotations do not convey.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the resource, then ordering, then pagination, with no redundant or filler content. 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 not say what a 'caso' record contains or what an empty result looks like, and it only obliquely covers response format. It is adequate for a simple paginated list with well-documented parameters, but leaves the agent guessing at the shape of returned data.

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 description coverage is 100%, so limit, offset and response_format are already documented with ranges, defaults and the markdown/json enum. The description only echoes that pagination exists and adds no format or semantics beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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 and resource ('Lista los casos de investigación') plus scope details (ordering, pagination), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly name how it differs from siblings like osint_get_case_summary, which is the only thing keeping it from 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?

Usage is only implied: the verb 'Lista' signals enumeration, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over osint_get_case_summary or osint_search_entities, and no exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer the routing from the tool name alone.

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