url_encode_decode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: no information on error handling, performance, side effects, or output format. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's operation.

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, efficient phrase in Spanish that directly states the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple utility tool, with no wasted words or unnecessary elaboration. The structure is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 URL encoding/decoding tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks behavioral details and usage context. The schema handles parameters well, but without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to explain how the tool operates and what it returns.

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 description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. However, schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (text, operation, component) including enums and defaults. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema adequately documents parameters without needing description supplementation.

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 'Codificar/decodificar componentes de URL' clearly states the tool's purpose as encoding/decoding URL components. It uses specific verbs (codificar, decodificar) and identifies the resource (componentes de URL). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'encode_decode' or 'parse_url', which appear related to similar URL/text operations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'encode_decode' (which seems similar), 'build_url', or 'parse_url', nor does it specify contexts where URL encoding/decoding is needed versus other text operations. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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