Spain Visa Submit

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and closed-world, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: the precise payload fields, the explicit negative guarantees (never returns documents or payment details, never accepts or reads documents), and where the write-type actions actually live. Those negatives are exactly the kind of boundary an agent needs to avoid misrouting a request.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage condition, then a compact enumeration of return contents and a negative-scope sentence. The enumerated field list is long but each item carries information; structure is clear and free of filler.

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?

A single-parameter read tool with no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating what comes back and what does not. Nothing an agent needs in order to decide to call it or to interpret the result 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?

There is a single optional parameter and the schema description already covers it at 100%, including the default to the most recently updated application. The description adds no additional syntax or format guidance, so the 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 clear resource and scope: status of the signed-in user's own application, plus an enumeration of the exact fields returned (stage, next steps with link, UGE registration number and filing date, last UGE status, receipt download location). That is enough to distinguish it from a generic listing tool, though no sibling (e.g. my_applications) is named for contrast.

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?

"Use only when the signed-in user asks about the status of their own application" gives an explicit triggering condition, and the closing sentence implicitly rules out out-of-scope actions (uploads, payment, power of attorney) by redirecting them to spainvisasubmit.com. Alternatives among the sibling tools are not named, so it stops short of a full when/when-not/alternative statement.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: it never accepts or reads documents, returns a fit/no-fit verdict with plain reasons, and explicitly offloads uploads, payment and power of attorney to the website. An agent knows both the safety profile and the boundary of the tool's authority.

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 trigger is front-loaded, followed by inputs, return value, and exclusions in a logical order with no filler. The site-redirect sentence is slightly tangential but earns its place by preventing the agent from attempting payment or upload actions.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the return shape ('fits or does not fit with plain reasons'). Combined with the stated exclusions and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description restates the three required inputs in user-facing terms ('package complete and ready', 'working Spanish digital certificate or Cl@ve', 'which procedure'), clarifying why each answer matters rather than just repeating the field names. The optional language parameter is left to the schema, which is acceptable at full coverage.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('check whether Spain Visa Submit suits their situation') and enumerates the three required answers, so an agent knows exactly what the tool evaluates. It does not name any sibling tool directly, so differentiation comes from exclusion rather than explicit routing.

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 an explicit trigger ('Use when the user wants to know whether Spain Visa Submit suits their situation') plus clear when-not boundaries: no document advice, no eligibility or visa strategy, no document reading, and uploads/payment/POA belong on spainvisasubmit.com. It stops short of pointing to a specific sibling for the adjacent tasks it declines.

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?

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, closed-world, non-destructive operation, so the bar is lower. The description still adds useful context: prices reflect live checkout pricing rather than a static table, and any mutating step is pushed to the external site.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger, then the return value, then the boundary. The final sentence about spainvisasubmit.com is somewhat tangential to invoking the tool but still earns its place as a scope guard.

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 no output schema, the description covers trigger, return shape (EUR breakdown) and scope limits. It does not say whether the breakdown includes taxes or per-applicant lines, a minor remaining gap.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds business meaning by framing the fee choice as 'with or without us paying the government fee Modelo 790-038' and reinforcing that cost is per applicant.

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 and resource ('Returns the EUR breakdown from the current checkout pricing') scoped to filing cost for a number of applicants. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from document-handling siblings by declaring 'It never accepts or reads documents', so an agent knows this is not start_application.

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?

Gives a clear trigger ('Use when the user asks how much filing costs...') and covers both fee modes. It does not name a specific sibling as the alternative, but it does draw the boundary by stating that uploads, payment and power of attorney happen only on spainvisasubmit.com.

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?

Annotations already establish a safe, closed-world read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real value on top: it declares the tool never accepts or reads documents and redirects mutating actions to the website. This prevents an agent from trying to attach files or perform payments through it. It stops short of describing result ordering or empty-account behavior.

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?

Three short sentences ordered by importance: when to use, what comes back, what it will not do. Every clause carries information an agent needs, and there is no filler or repetition of the title.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema and a read-only annotation profile, the description carries the whole burden and does so: it lists the returned fields in place of an output schema and draws the boundary around document and payment actions. Nothing needed to select or call this tool correctly 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no schema semantics to add; the description correctly says nothing about inputs. Baseline for a parameterless tool 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Lists the account's applications") and enumerates exactly what each entry contains: reference such as #1017, visa type, applicant count, current stage, start date. That field list also implicitly separates it from application_status, which covers a single application's status.

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?

"Use only when the signed-in user asks about their own Spain Visa Submit applications" gives an explicit inclusion condition and a scope restriction. It also rules out adjacent intents by saying uploads, payment and power of attorney happen only on spainvisasubmit.com, though it never names a sibling tool as the alternative for single-application or non-owned queries.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: it never accepts or reads documents, and all write-like actions (uploads, payment, power of attorney) are redirected off-tool to the site. That is real value beyond the 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?

Front-loaded with 'Use when...' and then compactly enumerates triggers, returns and boundaries; no filler sentences. The second and third sentences are dense but each clause carries distinct information, though the final sentence sits slightly awkwardly after the return-value list.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of enumerating the returned content (scope, exclusions, steps, timing, price summary, links), which is sufficient. Combined with annotations covering the read-only profile and the schema documenting the sole parameter, an agent has essentially everything needed to call it correctly.

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 the single 'language' parameter, including its enum and 'en' default, is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning about the parameter, so the 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?

The description states precisely what the tool returns: scope, exclusions, steps, timing, price summary and links for the Spanish UGE-CE filing service. It is clearly an informational/overview resource. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as get_quote or check_fit, even though a 'price summary' here overlaps with the quote tool, leaving mild ambiguity.

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?

Strong when-to-use framing: enumerated user questions (what it does, how filing works without a digital certificate, what they receive, timing, cost) map directly to invocation. It also implies a boundary by noting uploads, payment and power of attorney happen only on spainvisasubmit.com. It never names a specific alternative sibling, so the routing guidance stops short of full explicitness.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description does not need to re-establish safety. It adds real behavioral context beyond them: the tool returns a link rather than performing the application, nothing is uploaded or read, and payment/POA occur only on the external site. It does not say whether the generated link expires or is reusable, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage trigger followed by the return value and the scope boundary, with no filler sentences. The phrase 'plus what happens next on the site' is somewhat vague and could be tightened.

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 four-parameter, non-mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what is returned, that it is a link to an external site, and what the tool does not do. Missing details about link lifetime or what 'what happens next' contains are minor for this complexity level.

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 the enums are already well documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds modest value by tying procedure, applicants and fee to the prefilled link, but it omits the language parameter entirely and adds no format or default detail beyond the schema.

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 action and artifact: it returns a link that opens the application form on spainvisasubmit.com, prefilled with visa type, applicants and fee. That is clearly distinct from the sibling tools application_status, get_quote, check_fit and my_applications, which do not produce a start link.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger, 'Use when the user wants to start an application', so the agent knows the entry condition. It also draws a boundary by stating documents are never accepted or read and that uploads, payment and power of attorney happen only on the site. It does not explicitly name when to prefer check_fit or get_quote first, so it falls short of a 5.

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