suggest_categories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't state that this is a non-mutating lookup, how many suggestions are returned, whether they are ranked or confidence-scored, or what happens when no match exists — all significant gaps for a suggestion/ambiguity-resolution tool.

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 with zero filler; the action, output, and input modality are all front-loaded. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description is the only documentation and it omits the return shape entirely — one suggestion or many, and in what structure. An agent cannot tell what it will receive back or how to consume it, so the definition is incomplete for this tool's role.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'hint' parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate. It does partially: 'por palabras' clarifies the parameter is free text and the example 'contenedor desbordado' shows the expected granularity, but it doesn't say whether the hint is required or what language/format is accepted.

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 (suggests) and the exact resources returned (service_id + category_id) plus the input modality (words), with a concrete example. It clearly distinguishes itself from list_services/list_categories, which enumerate rather than infer IDs from free text, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase 'por palabras (p.ej. ...)' implies the tool is for turning a free-text hint into IDs, which is an adequate contextual signal. However, it never says when to prefer this over list_categories, nor whether it should be called before create_aviso, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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