Obtener Presidentes de Colombia

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

Annotations provide strong behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, openWorldHint: true, idempotentHint: true), covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying the return format ('Lista de presidentes con nombre, período, partido político y ciudad de nacimiento'), which is not covered by annotations. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context about output structure.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details and usage examples. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second specifies the return format, and the examples illustrate typical queries. It is appropriately sized with zero waste.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, return format, and usage examples. However, it could improve by explicitly differentiating from sibling tools like 'get_president'. With annotations handling behavioral aspects, the description provides adequate context for a list-retrieval 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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's function and output. This aligns with the baseline of 4 for tools with 0 parameters, as it avoids unnecessary details.

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 la lista de presidentes de Colombia' (Gets the list of presidents of Colombia). It specifies the verb ('obtiene') and resource ('presidentes de Colombia'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from its sibling 'get_president' (singular), which likely returns details for a specific president. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 includes example usage phrases ('¿Quiénes han sido los presidentes de Colombia?', 'Lista de presidentes colombianos'), which imply when to use this tool for general list queries. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_president' (for a specific president) or 'search_colombia' (for broader searches). Guidelines are implied but not explicit.

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