Cadena Láser — noticias y radios de Río Tercero

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the return fields (title, date, summary, citation URL, original outlet) and that content is in Spanish, which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the scope before the return-value details, and every clause carries information. The trailing English parenthetical is mildly redundant for a Spanish-language tool but functions as a compact clarifier rather than filler.

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 two-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers scope, language, and return shape, which is close to complete. Minor gaps remain around ranking/recency behavior and how results relate to ultimas_noticias, but nothing essential for invoking the tool is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented, so the baseline is 3. The description only reiterates that search is by keyword and adds no detail about the cantidad range, length limits, or query syntax beyond what the schema already states.

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 (Busca noticias) plus an explicit scope: Cadena Láser, Río Tercero and the region, and national/international coverage. It does not name or contrast itself with siblings such as ultimas_noticias or leer_nota, so an agent must infer that this is the keyword-search variant.

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?

Usage is implied by the mention of keyword search and the geographic/topical scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives like ultimas_noticias for browsing or leer_nota for opening a result.

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

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description contributes genuinely non-obvious behavior: cross-outlet notes are not returned in full but as a summary plus original link. It stops short of describing error handling for invalid URLs or missing notes.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and the fallback case second; nothing is padded. The parenthetical English translation is brief enough not to disrupt reading flow.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the key detail an agent needs: what is returned, including the degraded summary+link case. Only failure modes (invalid slug, note not found) are left unspecified.

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 100% and the single 'nota' parameter's accepted formats (URL or identifier) are already documented in the schema with examples. The description restates 'dirección o identificador' without adding format, validation, or slug-normalization detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('leer el detalle de una nota de Cadena Láser') plus the required input ('a partir de su dirección o identificador'), which cleanly separates it from list/search siblings like buscar_noticias and ultimas_noticias. It also scopes the behavior to a single article rather than a collection.

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 precondition for calling it is implicit but clear: you need a URL or slug. The description adds the useful fallback case (if the note belongs to another outlet, you get a summary and a link), which sets expectations about output. However, it never explicitly names an alternative tool or states when-not to use this one.

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

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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond that: the output structure and the operational caveat to wait for WhatsApp's photo link preview before sending, which is behavior the agent cannot see in structured fields.

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 core content is front-loaded in one dense sentence covering purpose, output format and timing, followed by the operational tip. The bilingual duplication and parenthetical translation add length without new information, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by describing exactly what the generated message contains. For a one-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage this is essentially complete, though it could note whether the source article must exist first.

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 100% and the single parameter (nota) is fully documented as a URL or identifier, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter format beyond what the schema states, matching the baseline 3.

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+resource: it turns one Cadena Láser article into a ready-to-post WhatsApp message, and spells out the exact composition (bold headline, deck, credit, marked link). It implicitly contrasts with the digest tool ("no se espera al resumen") but never names the sibling resumen_whatsapp, so differentiation requires inference.

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 gives a clear triggering condition — "para cuando pasa algo y no se espera al resumen" — which tells the agent to pick this over the summary path for a single breaking item. No explicit exclusions or named alternative tool, so it falls 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.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: the now-playing field only appears 'cuando la emisora lo informa' (when the station reports it), which warns the agent the field can be absent. Beyond that it does not describe refresh/real-time behavior.

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 that leads with the resource and the returned fields, plus a short parenthetical geographic gloss. Slightly long because of the full station enumeration, but every element carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it does: station identity, dial, profile, live audio link, and conditional now-playing. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and the empty input schema, an agent has enough to call and interpret the tool, though it lacks any note on freshness or update cadence.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to add, and the description correctly implies a no-argument, list-everything call.

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 names the exact resource (the Cadena Láser stations, enumerating all six with their dials) and the fields returned: dial, profile, live audio link, and now-playing. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling news tools (buscar_noticias, leer_nota, etc.), though it is phrased as a noun list rather than an explicit verb+resource statement.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for live radio station info, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternatives (the siblings are all news tools, so no real alternative exists). Adequate but leaves the trigger condition to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: the output mirrors the radio panel ordering, carries WhatsApp bold formatting, and uses tracked links for reach measurement, plus a caveat about waiting for the link preview with the photo before sending.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the ordering/formatting details follow in a single dense sentence. The appended English parenthetical partially restates the Spanish text, which is slightly redundant, but it usefully flags the language for a non-Spanish-reading agent.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns, how it is ordered and formatted, and the one operational gotcha (link preview before sending). Nothing material is missing for a zero-arg read tool.

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 takes zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4 by rule. There is nothing further for the description to disambiguate at the parameter level.

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 concrete verb+resource: it produces the day's ready-to-paste message for the Cadena Láser WhatsApp channel, and even specifies the selection/ordering rule (lo propio, Río Tercero, región). It is clear, but it never names the sibling it could be confused with (nota_para_whatsapp), so it stops short of explicit differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer you call this when you need the daily WhatsApp digest. The 'paste as-is, don't rewrite' and 'wait for the preview' lines guide use of the output, not when to choose this tool over nota_para_whatsapp or ultimas_noticias. No when-not conditions or alternatives are given.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds real semantic context (the geographic meaning of «locales» and «regionales») and implies recency ordering, but says nothing about pagination limits, refresh behavior, or what the result set looks like.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and packs the section disambiguation into one efficient sentence. The trailing English gloss '(Latest news, optionally by section.)' is mildly redundant but small, so structure remains tight overall.

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-required-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns (latest news), the optional filter, and the meaning of the ambiguous section values.

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 coverage is 100%, so the enum values and the cantidad bounds are already documented, putting the baseline at 3. The description goes beyond that by clarifying that «locales» means Río Tercero and «regionales» means the region and Córdoba, disambiguating two enum values the schema only labels generically.

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: fetching the most recent news from Cadena Láser, either site-wide or filtered by section. The scope is clear enough to distinguish from leer_nota (read a specific note) and radios, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with buscar_noticias, the closest sibling.

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?

Usage is implied ('de todo el sitio o de una sección') but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer buscar_noticias or leer_nota instead, and no prerequisites. Adequate but leaves the choice among siblings to inference.

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