list_warehouses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the source table (ALMACENES) and the default-value behavior for empresa, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are required, whether pagination or limits apply, or what happens when no warehouses exist.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the parameter explanation is compact and directly relevant. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or redundant restating of information already present in the schema.

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 single-parameter list operation with an output schema available, the description covers the core purpose and parameter semantics completely. The only gap is the absence of usage guidance and safety/permission context, but those are addressed in other dimensions and are less critical for a simple listing 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 schema only names 'Empresa' with a null default and no description. The tool description adds that it is a company key, supplies a concrete example ('01'), and clarifies that omission falls back to the default company. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Lista'), a concrete resource ('todos los almacenes registrados en ASPEL SAE'), and names the underlying table ALMACENES. This makes the tool's scope explicit and distinguishes it from siblings like get_stock_by_warehouse or get_warehouse_summary, which target individual or summarized warehouse data.

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 statement tells an agent when to choose list_warehouses over its siblings or when not to use it. The only additional context is the optional empresa fallback, which is parameter behavior rather than use-case guidance. Without exclusions or alternative routing, usage guidance is missing.

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