get_category

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It doesn't state whether the tool returns null/error for unknown codes, the shape of the response (name in which language?), or any side effects. For a lookup tool this leaves important behavioral gaps.

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?

Single short sentence, front-loaded. However, it is arguably too terse for a tool with two parameters and no schema descriptions, bordering on under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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?

For a lookup tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It omits input parameter meanings, language handling, and error behavior — all of which an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 0%, yet the description only mentions 'código y nombre' (code and name) as outputs, not inputs. It doesn't explain that 'code' is the required input, nor that 'lang' selects the language (constrained enum). With zero schema coverage, the description should compensate but doesn't.

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 it returns details of a 'tipo' (type), which partially aligns with 'category' in the tool name but introduces a different term. Does not distinguish itself from sibling 'list_categories', leaving ambiguity about whether this is retrieval of a single category vs enumeration.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus list_categories or suggest_categories. Condition for use (retrieving a single category by code) is only implied by the required parameter, not stated.

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