Expatriator Immigration Knowledge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates this is a 'live check', implying real-time data retrieval. For a zero-parameter tool, this is sufficient; it does not contradict any annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that convey all necessary information. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is complete. It states what the tool does and what it returns.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it does not. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets this adequately.

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 tool's purpose: live check of Madrid padrón appointment availability. It specifies the resource (Madrid Ayuntamiento padrón) and what it returns (open offices and timeslots). It is distinct from sibling tools which deal with procedure guides and knowledge search.

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 when to use the tool (when checking appointment availability) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. Sibling tools are different enough that confusion is unlikely, but best practices would include such guidance.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the content of the guide but does not disclose behavioral traits such as error handling on invalid procedure codes, language default behavior, or read-only nature. The description lacks important operational details.

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 purpose and example contents, followed by a directive to sibling tool. No unnecessary information, highly efficient.

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 two parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and directs to sibling for valid inputs. Lacks details on default language and return format, but the tool is simple enough that this is not a major gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters. Both parameters have descriptive schema entries, so the description provides no extra value.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves a step-by-step guide for Spanish procedures and lists example contents like booking portals, documents, and common problems. It also references sibling tool list_procedure_guides for valid codes, distinguishing its purpose.

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?

Explicitly advises to use list_procedure_guides for valid codes, providing clear guidance on when to use the sibling tool. However, it does not state when not to use this tool or mention other alternatives.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes what is listed, but does not disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, or limitations (e.g., ordering, pagination). However, for a simple read-only list with no parameters, it is adequate.

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?

Single sentence, no redundant information. Every word 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully explains what it does and what it returns. Nothing 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?

There are no parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by detailing the content of the list (procedure code, name, provinces covered), which clarifies what the user will receive.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists Spanish procedure guides, specifying the returned fields (procedure code, name, provinces covered). The verb 'list' and resource 'procedure guides' are specific and distinct from siblings like 'get_procedure_guide' or 'search_immigration_knowledge'.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not instructions, but the context from sibling tools implies use this to browse available guides before retrieving a specific one. Lacks direct guidance, but the purpose is straightforward.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as a search operation, which is inherently read-only, but does not explicitly state the lack of destructive effects. The description adds context about the nature of the data (gotchas) but omits details like authentication, rate limits, or idempotency.

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 immediately conveys the tool's purpose and its unique value. Every phrase adds information (curated, gotchas, severity, workarounds, country coverage) without 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?

Given the absence of an output schema and the presence of five parameters, the description adequately explains the tool's domain and the nature of results (gotchas with severity and workarounds). However, it lacks details on result ordering, pagination, and the exact fields returned. It is nearly complete for a search 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, though it provides examples for 'country' (ES, PT) and 'procedure' (nationality, tie_renewal, nie, padron), which slightly enriches the parameter semantics.

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 specifies a concrete resource ('curated immigration knowledge base of gotchas') and a clear action ('Search'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on non-official gotchas with severity and workarounds, covering specific countries.

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 explains when to use this tool (searching for gotchas vs. official guidance) and implies when not to use it (for official procedures, which are covered by get_procedure_guide or list_procedure_guides). It does not explicitly mention alternatives but the sibling context fills this gap.

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