Actualizar cache del catalogo

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

The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it explicitly states the operation runs in the background and writes to local SQLite without modifying remote data. This complements the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by clarifying the side effects are local and non-destructive. However, it does not mention potential rate limits, resource usage, or how long the operation may take.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action (starts crawler in background) and follows with the data targets and the non-modification guarantee. There is no fluff or redundancy; every phrase adds value.

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 description is incomplete for a tool with an optional parameter and a sibling for status checking. It does not mention the category_id parameter, nor does it point to get_catalog_refresh_status for tracking progress or outcomes. While an output schema exists, the description should at least hint at the asynchronous nature and how to verify completion. This is a significant gap for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 has one optional parameter (category_id) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention this parameter at all. An agent would have no idea that it can filter the refresh by a specific category, nor what the parameter's format or effect is. The description completely fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it starts a local Scrapy crawler in the background and writes catalog and price history to SQLite. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_catalog_refresh_status by emphasizing it initiates a refresh rather than checking status. The phrase 'sin modificar datos remotos' further clarifies its scope.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention get_catalog_refresh_status as the way to check the result of a refresh, nor does it state any conditions or prerequisites (e.g., requiring an existing catalog). The description only explains what the tool does, not when it should be chosen.

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