codif_classify_activity

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the output format ('códigos + probabilidades'), mentions the classification system (CAENES), and indicates batch processing capability ('una o varias glosas'). Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, and open-world characteristics, so the description appropriately supplements rather than contradicts them.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: first sentence states what it does, second sentence specifies input/output formats. No redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.

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 read-only classification tool with good annotations and complete schema coverage, the description provides adequate context. It explains the classification system, granularity options, and output format. The main gap is lack of output schema, but the description compensates by specifying the return format. Slightly more guidance on usage scenarios would improve completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description mentions the input format ('array de strings') and output format, but doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 specific action ('Clasifica' - classifies), the resource ('glosas de actividad económica' - economic activity descriptions), and the classification system ('CAENES') with granularity options (1 or 2 digits). It distinguishes from siblings like 'codif_classify_occupation' by specifying economic activity classification rather than occupation classification.

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 implies usage context through the input/output specification (array of strings to codes+probabilities), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't provide guidance on when to choose 1-digit vs 2-digit granularity or mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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