Obtener Presidente Específico

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

The annotations already provide strong behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, openWorldHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this - it clarifies that this retrieves 'detailed information' about a specific president, which provides some additional semantic context. However, it doesn't describe what constitutes 'detailed information' or any other behavioral traits not covered by annotations.

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 reasonably concise and well-structured. It starts with the core purpose, then provides Args and Returns sections, followed by an example. The Spanish language structure is clear. While efficient, the example could be more integrated with the main description rather than appearing as a separate section.

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?

Given the simple nature of this tool (single parameter, read-only operation with good annotation coverage), the description is mostly adequate. However, without an output schema, the description should ideally provide more detail about what 'información detallada' includes. The annotations cover safety aspects well, but the description could better explain the relationship with the sibling 'get_presidents' tool.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'id' clearly documented as 'ID del presidente' with type integer and minimum value 1. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Obtiene información detallada de un presidente específico' (Gets detailed information of a specific president). It uses a specific verb ('obtiene') and resource ('presidente específico'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get_presidents' (plural). The description is clear but lacks sibling differentiation, which would be helpful since both tools deal with presidents.

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 the sibling tool 'get_presidents' (which presumably lists multiple presidents) or other related tools. The example usage shows how to invoke it but doesn't provide contextual guidance about appropriate use cases or prerequisites.

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