inestat_get_structure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, read-only operation with open-world semantics. The description adds useful context about the tool's purpose (returning structure for filtering), but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and its utility. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 parameter, no output schema), rich annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint), and high schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the tool's purpose and utility, though it could benefit from more explicit differentiation from sibling tools or details on output format.

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% (the 'flowRef' parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'Dataflow ID' with examples). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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: 'Devuelve la estructura (dimensiones, codelists) de un dataflow específico' (Returns the structure of a specific dataflow). It specifies the verb ('devuelve') and resource ('estructura de un dataflow'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'inestat_list_dataflows' or 'inestat_get_data' beyond mentioning it's useful for knowing what filters to apply before querying 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?

The description provides implied usage guidance: 'Útil para saber qué filtros aplicar antes de consultar datos' (Useful for knowing what filters to apply before querying data). This suggests it should be used before data queries, but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'inestat_get_data' or 'inestat_list_dataflows', nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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