es_get_teac_criterio

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent, which the description's 'Fetch' aligns with. The description adds that the response includes the 'full resolution text,' which is useful but also covered by the output schema. No extra behavioral context (e.g., errors, pagination) is provided, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence delivers all essential information without any filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it an exemplary concise description.

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 simple get-by-id operation, the presence of a full output schema, and strong annotations, the description is sufficient. It correctly identifies the tool's purpose and key identifier, and no critical operational details are missing.

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 description for 'criterio_id' is thorough, explaining the source (es_search_teac_doctrine) and providing an example format, giving 100% coverage. The tool description itself merely restates 'by its DYCTEA id,' adding no further semantic value beyond 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Fetch'), the resource ('one TEAC criterio'), and the distinguishing scope ('with the full resolution text', 'by its DYCTEA id'). This differentiates it from sibling get-tools that target other document types, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 the tool is used when you have a specific DYCTEA id, and the schema explicitly references es_search_teac_doctrine as the source of that id, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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