Expatriator Immigration Knowledge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses it is a live check via the official portal (external dependency) and that it returns data 'when available', but it does not mention failure modes (timeouts, portal outages), what happens when no appointments exist, latency expectations, or whether results are cached. For a tool with no annotation support, this is a significant gap.

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 with zero waste. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the return value is stated in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is extremely simple (no parameters, no output schema), so the description covers the essential purpose and return value (open offices and timeslots). It lacks explicit handling of error cases or no-availability scenarios, but given the minimal complexity, a 4 is reasonable—it is almost complete, missing only failure-mode details.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. Per the baseline rule for 0-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to add parameter semantics that do not exist.

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 verb 'check' plus the specific resource 'Madrid Ayuntamiento padrón (empadronamiento) appointment availability' gives a precise, actionable purpose. It clearly distinguishes from siblings (procedure guides, knowledge search) by being a live operational check rather than a documentation/information tool.

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 states it is a 'live check' and returns open offices and timeslots, which clearly implies when to use it (when you need to know appointment availability). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name siblings, but the sibling names (get_procedure_guide, list_procedure_guides, search_immigration_knowledge) are obviously distinct, making context clear without explicit exclusions.

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 implies a read-only retrieval (getting a guide) and mentions the content type, but does not disclose potential errors for invalid codes, return format, or any side effects. The mention of using list_procedure_guides hints at a prerequisite but stops short of explicit behavioral detail. Adequate given simplicity, but not rich.

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 with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and the sibling routing is stated succinctly. Every word earns its place.

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 simple retrieval tool with only two parameters, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description explains the return (a step-by-step guide) and gives actionable guidance for codes. It does not mention error behavior or output formatting, but these are not critical for a simple read tool. Missing a bit of depth but largely complete.

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 both parameters (language, procedure) are documented. The description adds value by illustrating the procedure parameter with an example ('padron') and contextualizing the guide content, but it does not go beyond schema meaning significantly. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource (step-by-step guide for a Spanish procedure), specifies the content areas (booking portals, documents needed, common problems), and explicitly distinguishes itself from list_procedure_guides by directing users there for valid codes. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable even among siblings.

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 explicitly instructs when to use list_procedure_guides ('for valid codes'), providing a clear alternative for code lookup. While it does not mention the other siblings (check_madrid_padron_availability, search_immigration_knowledge), the primary use case is well-defined and the most relevant alternative is named. Slightly incomplete but strong.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'List', and it specifies the output fields. However, it does not explicitly state that it makes no modifications, or mention any performance, paging, or error behavior. The description is adequate but not rich, scoring a 3.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the exact fields returned. No fluff, every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it tells what is listed and what attributes each item has. It doesn't specify the format or ordering, but that isn't critical for a simple list. It could mention that this is the entry point to obtain a specific guide via get_procedure_guide, but overall it's sufficient.

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, so the baseline is 4. The empty schema means no parameter documentation is needed, and the description doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate. Nothing is missing here.

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 ('List') and a specific resource ('step-by-step Spanish procedure guides Expatriator can provide') with explicit output fields (procedure code, name, provinces covered). It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_procedure_guide (which fetches a single guide) and search_immigration_knowledge (which searches broader 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?

The description conveys when to use it: to obtain an overview of available procedure guides. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, the zero-parameter nature and the list verb make the context clear. A direct pointer to get_procedure_guide for fetching a specific guide would be an improvement, but the tool's simplicity lowers the need.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the content type (gotchas, workarounds, severity levels) and geographic coverage (Spain, Portugal, general), which is genuinely informative. However, it does not explicitly declare read-only behavior or any side effects (e.g., that it performs no mutations), which is a minor gap for a search tool.

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 with no wasted words. The core value proposition (search gotchas) is front-loaded, followed by key details (severity, workarounds, coverage). Every phrase earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan quickly.

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 5 parameters are all schema-described and the domain is clear, the description conveys the essential scope and content. Since there is no output schema, it would benefit from briefly describing the return format (e.g., a list of gotcha items with severity and workaround fields), though it does hint at that via 'severity levels and workarounds'. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

All five parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds little semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Mentioning 'severity levels' aligns with the severity parameter but does not elaborate on filtered behavior or value syntax, meeting the baseline for schema-covered 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 clearly identifies the specific resource (Expatriator's curated immigration knowledge base), the action (search), and the distinctive content ('gotchas' with severity levels and workarounds). It differentiates itself from siblings like get_procedure_guide by emphasizing real-world pitfalls rather than official procedures, making its 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 this is the tool for finding documented immigration gotchas, but it never explicitly contrasts it with siblings like get_procedure_guide or list_procedure_guides. An agent must infer when to choose this over a step-by-step guide; no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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