Ver detalle de una institución pública

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the returned attribute set, and says nothing about invalid-ID behavior, pagination or data freshness. Adequate but not rich.

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 terse sentence with zero filler; the resource and returned fields are front-loaded. It is efficient, though so short that it reads as a label rather than a definition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. Still, for a lookup tool in a large sibling ecosystem, the description omits how to obtain the ID and how this differs from list_instituciones, leaving a gap an agent must resolve by inference.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema (institucion_id example and the format enum with default). The description adds no syntax, format or ID-sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description names the resource and scope ('One gob.ec institution') plus the fields returned (acronym, sector, description, websites), which tells an agent it is a single-record lookup. However, it is a verbless fragment, and it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'list_instituciones' beyond the word 'One'. Purpose is inferable but not stated with a verb.

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 when-to-use guidance, no indication that institucion_id must first come from list_instituciones, and no exclusions relative to siblings such as list_instituciones or get_organization_info. The only routing signal is 'gob.ec', which is implied context rather than stated guidance.

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