Paso de actualizacion de producto (puStep)

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those: it verifies that /basicData does not return puStep and explains that the tool reports the absence rather than substituting fabricated data. This tells the agent exactly what to expect when the data is missing.

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, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second prevents a critical misinterpretation, and the third explains the tool's observed behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description provides all necessary context. It clarifies what the tool exposes, what it does NOT expose, and how it behaves when the underlying data is absent. Nothing important is missing for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter details to add; the description correctly focuses on the tool's purpose and behavior.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Expone puStep, el paso de actualizacion de PRODUCTO.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from a vehicle software version, which is a likely confusion point, by stating that descriptor does not exist in the BMW catalog. It could be even stronger by naming a specific sibling tool, but the core purpose is unambiguous and differentiated.

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 gives explicit when-not guidance: it is NOT the vehicle software version and that descriptor is absent from both the BMW catalog and /basicData for this vehicle. This helps an agent avoid using it as a software-version lookup. However, it does not explicitly name which sibling tool to use instead for software-version queries, so the guidance is strong but not fully complete.

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