Live check of Madrid Ayuntamiento padrón (empadronamiento) appointment availability via the official portal. Returns open offices and timeslots when available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct function: checking appointment availability, retrieving a specific guide, listing available guides, and searching the knowledge base. There is no overlap or ambiguity in their purposes, making it easy for agents to select the right tool.
All tool names follow a clear verb_noun pattern with snake_case: check, get, list, search. The naming is predictable and consistent, even the longer check_madrid_padron_availability adheres to the same structure.
With 4 tools, the surface is well-scoped for a specialized immigration knowledge server. Each tool provides clear value without redundancy, and the count is neither sparse nor overwhelming.
The tool set covers the server's stated purpose: checking live availability, accessing detailed procedural guides, enumerating available guides, and searching the knowledge base for pitfalls. There are no obvious gaps that would leave agents unable to accomplish common tasks.
