describe_mcp_usc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the notable behavioral constraint 'sin usar la red' (without using the network), which is beyond the annotations and helps the agent know it is a purely local metadata call. This extra context justifies a score above baseline.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and explicitly mentions limits, security model, and the offline behavior. Every word earns its place; there is 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only meta tool, the description fully covers its scope: what it does, what it covers (limits, security), and a key behavioral trait (offline). Annotations handle the safety profile, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so there is nothing to explain. Per the baseline rule for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate; the empty schema needs no further documentation.

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 states a clear verb ('Explica' / explains), a specific resource (this MCP), and what it covers (purpose, limits, security model). It is distinct from all sibling tools, which are all domain actions; this is a meta-description tool with no ambiguity.

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 makes the context obvious: use it to understand what the MCP does, its constraints, and its security model. It does not explicitly state 'when not to use' or name alternatives, but there are no competing tools for this purpose, and the intent is implicitly clear.

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