Ищет присяжных переводчиков (traductores jurados) из официального реестра МИД Испании по языку и провинции. Только такие переводы принимаются UGE и консульствами.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Сколько вернуть (максимум 20) | |
| language | Yes | Язык документа по-русски (например: Русский, Украинский, Английский) или по-испански заглавными (RUSO, INGLES) | |
| province | No | Провинция Испании (необязательно), например MADRID или BARCELONA |
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 adds behavioral context by specifying the official registry as the source and the acceptance by UGE/consulates. However, it omits return format, pagination, or edge cases, which is a notable 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a single contextual statement. Every word earns its place, with no 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?
The tool is a simple finder with well-documented parameters and no output schema. The description covers purpose, source, and significance concisely. While it does not specify the return structure, the output is predictable from the tool name and purpose; a bit more detail on returned fields would push it to 5.
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 already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description only restates that filtering is by language and province, adding no new parameter details. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the load.
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 uses the specific verb 'Ищет' (finds), names the resource ('присяжных переводчиков' / sworn translators), identifies the official source ('официального реестра МИД Испании'), and specifies criteria ('по языку и провинции'). This cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which focus on DNV eligibility and facts.
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 context by noting that only these sworn translations are accepted by UGE and consulates, signaling why a user would need this tool. It does not state explicit when-not-to-use rules, but the sibling tools have clearly unrelated purposes, so ambiguity is minimal.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: eligibility checking, translator lookup, and factual reference. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (check_, find_, get_), making them predictable and readable.
With 3 tools, the server is tightly scoped to its purpose. Each tool covers a necessary aspect of the Digital Nomad Visa process without redundancy or bloat.
The set covers the core needs: eligibility assessment, translator search, and general requirements. Minor gaps exist such as a dedicated document checklist, but the main workflows are supported.
