qc_get_inspections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose important runtime traits: default date window, 100-record page limit, and offset-based pagination. It does not explicitly state that the call is read-only or describe result ordering, but the read verb and the stated behavior are sufficient for safe invocation.

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?

Three short, purposeful sentences: first the object and content, then default dates, then pagination. Every sentence earns its place, and the most decision-relevant facts are front-loaded with no 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 list tool with no required parameters, no output schema, and fully documented parameters, the description covers purpose, returned data fields, defaults, and pagination. It omits ordering and error details, but nothing essential for deciding to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema fully documents all four parameters, including defaults and pagination behavior, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description repeats the default date range and page-size behavior but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Obtiene') and clearly identifies the resource ('las planillas de control de calidad de QualityControl'), then enumerates the data fields returned. The plural 'planillas' and 'registradas en la empresa' make clear this is the list-oriented tool, distinguishing it from qc_get_inspection_by_id and qc_get_quality_summary.

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?

It gives actionable invocation context: the date range defaults to the current month and pagination is handled via offset, so an agent knows how to correctly request a ranged listing. It does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, which prevents a 5.

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