bases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It indicates the tool is read-only (returns metadata) and specifies the source (IMPO's datos abiertos service). However, it does not disclose caching behavior or any other side effects, though the TTL parameter implies caching.

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 very concise: one sentence defining purpose, one sentence elaborating on the return type. No unnecessary words or repetition. Front-loaded with the key action.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It clarifies the resource ('bases' = databases in IMPO) and the return content (metadata and structure). Could be slightly more explicit about the meaning of 'bases' for users unfamiliar with IMPO.

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% for the only parameter (ttl), and its description in the schema is clear. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema, thus baseline 3.

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 retrieves information about available bases (databases) in IMPO, using a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'bases'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on listing all available databases, while siblings like 'schema' likely deal with individual schemas.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not when it should be used over 'norma', 'schema', or 'search'. The agent must infer from context.

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