Expatriator Immigration Knowledge

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'live check' and returns 'open offices and timeslots', but lacks details on response format, error handling, or behavioral traits like rate limits.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the key action and result. No extraneous text.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete for a simple check tool. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., list, JSON), which could be clarified.

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?

No parameters in the schema, so baseline is 4. Description does not need to add parameter info, and it adds no confusion.

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: checking appointment availability for padrón (empadronamiento) at Madrid Ayuntamiento. It distinguishes from sibling tools (procedure guides, knowledge search) by focusing on live availability.

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 use for checking appointment availability but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No mention of prerequisites or 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, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or error handling for invalid codes. While the purpose is clear, the agent lacks information about side effects or prerequisites, which is critical without 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 succinct, consisting of two sentences with no extraneous information. The first sentence defines the tool's purpose, and the second provides essential usage guidance. 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?

Given the simple two-parameter schema and clear description, the tool is largely complete. However, lacking an output schema, the agent does not know the format of the returned guide (e.g., text, structured list). The sibling reference improves completeness.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by hinting that the procedure parameter should come from list_procedure_guides, which is not evident from the schema alone. The language enum is also well-defined.

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 retrieves a step-by-step guide for a Spanish procedure, listing specific content (booking portals, documents, common problems). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list_procedure_guides by directing users to that tool for valid procedure 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?

The description explicitly tells users to use list_procedure_guides for valid codes, providing clear guidance on when to use a sibling tool. However, it does not mention when to use the other sibling, check_madrid_padron_availability, which could be relevant for space availability checks.

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 burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates a read-only listing operation, but does not confirm absence of side effects or mention any requirements.

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 concise sentence that effectively communicates the tool's purpose and output, with no 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 zero-parameter list tool, the description adequately specifies the returned data (code, name, provinces). It lacks detail on pagination or filtering, but this is acceptable given the 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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty object). The description does not need to add parameter info; the baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 lists step-by-step Spanish procedure guides and specifies the returned fields (code, name, provinces covered), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_procedure_guide which likely retrieves a single guide.

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 the tool is for listing all available guides, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings like 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. It explains the tool returns gotchas with severity levels and workarounds, covering specific countries. It does not mention side effects or authorization needs, but for a read-only search tool this is adequate. No contradictions.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the key concept ('gotchas') and enumerates features (severity, workarounds, coverage). No wasted words, and it 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?

Given 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the domain and nature of results (gotchas with severity and workarounds) but does not describe return structure explicitly. It mentions coverage but could detail output format. Overall, adequately 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% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., query as natural-language, country as ISO code, severity as enum). 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?

The description clearly states the tool searches Expatriator's curated immigration knowledge base of gotchas, distinguishing it from siblings like check_madrid_padron_availability and procedure guides. The verb 'search' and resource 'immigration knowledge base' are specific, and the mention of severity levels and workarounds adds clarity.

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 usage when seeking hidden immigration pitfalls (gotchas) with severity and workarounds. While it does not explicitly state when not to use, the context of siblings (padron checks, procedure guides) makes it clear this tool is for non-official guidance. A brief exclusion would improve it.

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