Expatriator Immigration Knowledge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this hits the official portal live and that results (offices and timeslots) only appear 'when available,' hinting at possible empty responses. It omits any note on latency, rate limiting, auth needs, or failure behavior of the external portal.

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, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first clause. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, data source, and the shape of the result (open offices and timeslots). The only gap is deeper behavioral detail about the external portal, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 of 4 applies; there is no parameter syntax for the description to add or omit.

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 and resource: a live check of Madrid Ayuntamiento padrón appointment availability via the official portal. It is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the sibling tools (procedure guides, knowledge search), which are informational rather than availability lookups.

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 word 'Live check' implies usage when current, real-time availability is needed, which implicitly distinguishes it from static guide/knowledge siblings. However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus the alternatives, nor names any exclusion or prerequisite, leaving routing 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the nature of the returned content (a step-by-step guide) and the code prerequisite, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or whether an invalid code errors versus returning an empty guide.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero waste; the purpose and returned content are front-loaded before the routing hint.

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 tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, key output content, and code sourcing. It could specify the default language behavior or error handling, but nothing essential 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% – the schema already documents both the procedure code and the language enum with its default. The description adds only the pointer to list_procedure_guides for valid codes, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Get) and resource (step-by-step guide for a Spanish procedure), and even enumerates the content it returns (booking portals, documents needed, common problems). It distinguishes itself from list_procedure_guides, which it names as the source of valid codes.

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 routes the agent to list_procedure_guides for valid procedure codes, which is a clear when-to-use-this-other-tool instruction. It does not address search_immigration_knowledge as an alternative, so a small gap remains.

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 correctly implies a safe read-only enumeration and even discloses the return fields, but it omits pagination, authentication, or result-size context. For a zero-parameter read tool this is adequate 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource and the fields returned with zero wasted words.

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, parameterless, read-only listing with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies what an agent needs: what it lists and what fields come back. Missing only minor behavioral detail like result volume or pagination.

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 no parameters (0 required, 0 total), so there is nothing to document; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description adds no misleading parameter claims.

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 (list) and resource (Spanish procedure guides), and enumerates the returned fields (procedure code, name, provinces covered), which lets an agent distinguish it from the singular get_procedure_guide sibling. Differentiation from siblings is implicit rather than explicit, so it stops short of a 5.

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 discovery-style listing ('list the ... guides Expatriator can provide'), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as get_procedure_guide or search_immigration_knowledge.

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, and it does disclose the nature of the data (curated gotchas, severity levels, workarounds). However, it says nothing about whether results are ranked, paginated, or how the severity ordering interacts with the optional filters, so behavioral detail is partial.

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, front-loaded with what the tool searches and followed by coverage scope. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 five-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the domain well but omits result behavior (ordering, pagination, result shape) and gives no guidance on combining the severity/country/procedure filters, leaving gaps an agent would have to discover empirically.

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 every parameter is documented in the schema, including the enum and examples for country/procedure. The description adds the thematic framing but no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (search) and a distinctive resource (curated immigration knowledge base of 'gotchas' with severity levels and workarounds), and even quotes the content's spirit ('official guidance says X but reality is Y'). This is clearly separable from the sibling procedure-guide and padron tools.

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 useful context on scope ('Covers Spain (deepest), Portugal, and general immigration pitfalls'), which helps an agent decide when it's useful, but it never states when to prefer this over get_procedure_guide or list_procedure_guides, nor any exclusions.

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