buk_list_operations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by naming the searchable fields and explicitly limiting data scope ('Does not request HR data'), but it never mentions paging behavior or what the returned operation records contain.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, then the searchable fields, then the follow-up step and scope limit. No repetition and nothing wasted.

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?

It is adequate for a discovery/catalog tool, but with no output schema the description should say what a listed operation looks like and that results are paginated (limit/offset exist with defaults). Those omissions are the main gaps for an agent deciding how many calls to make.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it clarifies what `search` and `tag` operate over (Spanish names, English paths, tags) and implies `method` filtering via 'operations'. However, `limit`, `offset` and the method enum are left entirely undocumented, so half the surface remains unexplained.

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 ('Discover every operation in the official Buk Chile API') and scopes the search dimensions (Spanish names, English paths, tags). It also separates itself from buk_describe_operation by saying you describe an operation afterwards, so an agent can pick between the two without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow: search here first, then describe the exact operation before calling it, which implicitly routes to buk_describe_operation. 'Does not request HR data' sets a scope boundary against the HR/payroll siblings, though those alternatives are not named directly.

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