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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds a genuinely new behavioral fact the annotations do not encode: "No necesita claves" (no authentication required). It also discloses the shape of what is returned, which is valuable for a read tool with no output schema. It does not cover failure behavior for an unknown operationId or any caching/rate-limit traits.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the returned content, then the auth constraint. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The enumeration of return fields compensates well for the absent output schema, but with 0% parameter documentation and no sibling differentiation, an agent still lacks guidance on where operationIds come from and how this differs from the two docs_* tools.

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 0% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate. It only repeats that input is an "operationId" and adds no format, origin (e.g., from docs_search results), or validity guidance beyond the regex already in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Devuelve el contrato exacto de una operación de la OnePlatform API") and enumerates exactly what the contract contains: método, ruta, parámetros, cuerpo, respuestas y códigos de error. It does not, however, name or contrast the sibling tools (docs_search, docs_get_page), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is the one to call when you have an operationId and need the full API contract. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no mention of the sibling docs tools as alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., how to first obtain an operationId).

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context on top: the payload is returned in Markdown and no credentials are needed, which tells the agent it can call it blind. What it does not say is what happens on a nonexistent path or whether content is paginated.

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?

Three short sentences: what it returns, what it accepts with an example, and the auth note. Front-loaded with the outcome and zero redundant text.

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 one-parameter read-only fetch with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers return format (Markdown) and auth needs. Only error/not-found behavior is left unaddressed, a minor gap at this complexity level.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already says the parameter accepts a route or URL on developer.1platform.pro. The description nevertheless adds a concrete worked example path (/docs/saas/1platform-api/links-de-pago), which is the piece agents most often guess wrong, so it edges above the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns a OnePlatform documentation page in Markdown, which an agent can instantly tell apart from docs_search or api_get_operation. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast against, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the name and by the note that no keys are required. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus docs_search (e.g. 'use this when you already have the path; use docs_search to find it'), and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the auth note.

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

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses two useful behavioral facts: results come back as Markdown with URLs, and no API key is required. It does not mention ranking behavior, latency, or result-count behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste; the core purpose and return format are front-loaded, and the auth note is appended briefly at the end.

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 two-parameter read-only search tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers what it does, what it returns, and that no key is needed. The main gap is the undocumented `limit` parameter and any hint about result ordering or pagination.

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 coverage is 50%: `query` is documented in the schema with an example, but `limit` has no description anywhere. The description's phrase 'las páginas más relevantes' hints at result selection but never explains the limit parameter, so it adds little over the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (busca) and resource (documentación de OnePlatform para desarrolladores) plus the return shape: most relevant pages with their URL in Markdown. It implicitly separates itself from docs_get_page (fetch a specific page) and api_get_operation, but never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of when to prefer docs_get_page for full page content or api_get_operation for API references. The only contextual note is 'No necesita claves', which is an auth fact rather than usage routing.

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