spv_request_prepare

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it explains the returned requestId and channel, describes the 'ws' certificate-based GET flow and the 'web' form submission flow including the POST endpoint, lists categories that require the web channel, and explains how the eventual answer document arrives asynchronously in listaMesaje.

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 front-loaded with the step and purpose, then gives return behavior, routing details, and the asynchronous outcome. Every part contributes operational information, and there is no redundant restatement of the name or annotations.

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 workflow-preparation tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, the two channel behaviors, the certificate requirement for the local agent, the web submission fallback, the next relay step, and how the final answer is delivered later. It is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by stating that type and params are validated and by directing the agent to spv_request_types for the authoritative list of accepted request types and parameters.

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 verb and resource: 'Step 1 of an SPV request: validate the type and parameters.' It distinguishes this preparation step from the downstream relay tool by naming spv_request_agent_result and pointing to spv_request_types for valid values.

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?

It clearly defines this as the first step in the SPV request workflow and names the relevant companion tools: spv_request_types for validating type/parameters and spv_request_agent_result for relaying the answer. The workflow context is explicit enough that an agent can select this tool without ambiguity.

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