qc_get_inspection_by_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool performs a read-only lookup ('Busca y muestra'), that it searches two specific fields, and that it does not require a date range. However, it does not mention output format, not-found behavior, or any access requirements. Adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 compact and well-structured. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the key distinction (no date range), the search fields, and a concrete usage example. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant filler.

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 simple one-parameter ID lookup, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, which fields are searched, and gives concrete examples. The main gap is the lack of output or error behavior detail, but the tool's low complexity and clear focus make the description reasonably complete.

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 input schema already documents the single id parameter with 100% coverage, including that it searches both id and id_planilla. The description adds example phrasing but does not materially expand parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific action: searching and displaying a specific quality-control planilla by ID in QualityControl. It names the exact fields searched (id and id_planilla) and provides concrete user-phrase examples, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and differentiating it from date-range list queries.

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 gives clear usage context: use it when the user asks for a specific known planilla or record by ID, with examples. It also notes that no date range is needed, implying this is not for range-based listing, but it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it.

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