pandape_endpoints

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

Since no annotations are supplied, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It discloses the return format (método, ruta, parámetros, content-type) and uses 'Explora' and 'Devuelve', which imply a read-only operation. However, it omits any statement about side effects, authentication, or response size limits, leaving some uncertainty 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 exceptionally concise, using two sentences to convey purpose, scope, output, and usage guidance. It front-loads the main action, includes a useful enumeration of covered categories, and ends with a clear pointer to the sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given its simplicity (one optional filter parameter, no output schema), the description is quite complete. It explains the domain coverage (68 routes across many entity types), the returned fields, and how to apply the result with pandape_api. Missing only explicit mention of how the optional filter works (covered by the schema) and any pagination behavior, but these are not critical for a catalog listing tool.

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 only parameter 'buscar' has a complete schema description (100% coverage) explaining its filtering behavior and providing examples. The tool description itself does not mention this parameter, but per the rubric, high schema coverage yields a baseline of 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Explora el catálogo de endpoints de la API de Pandapé'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pandape_api (which executes calls) by focusing on exploration and listing the returned data (method, route, parameters, content-type).

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 clear context that this is a discovery tool and explicitly directs the user to use its result with pandape_api ('Usa el resultado con pandape_api'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternative sibling tools, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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