Obtener Emisoras de Radio

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds useful context about filtering capability and the return format (name, frequency, city, streaming URL), which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, explains the optional parameter, details the return format, and provides relevant usage examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the information is front-loaded effectively.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter), rich annotations covering safety and idempotency, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It explains what the tool does, how to use it, and what it returns. The main gap is the lack of an output schema, but the description compensates by detailing the return format. For a simple read operation, this is nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter city_id clearly documented in the schema. The description mentions filtering by city and provides usage examples that imply the parameter's purpose, but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what the schema already states. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 with a specific verb ('obtiene') and resource ('lista de emisoras de radio de Colombia'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for radio stations rather than airports, cities, or other Colombian data. The description explicitly mentions Colombia, which differentiates it from generic radio station tools.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (to get radio stations in Colombia, optionally filtered by city), and the examples reinforce this usage. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, though the sibling list shows related tools like get_cities that might be used in conjunction.

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