Zertidox

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the returned content and pointing out that the current price lives at url_informacion, which matters because there is no output schema to carry that information.

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 with zero filler: purpose and key first, then the returned contents and the price pointer. Nothing is redundant and the important routing information is front-loaded.

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 carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so reasonably (descripción, form fields, enlaces, price location). It leaves some detail about the exact shape of the ficha and its links unstated, keeping it short of fully 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% and the schema already documents the single `tipo` parameter with an example. The description still adds meaning by tying `tipo` to its origin in listar_tramites, clarifying where the value comes from beyond the schema's generic 'Código del trámite'.

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 ('Devuelve') and resource ('la ficha de un trámite'), identifies the lookup key ('código tipo'), and enumerates what the ficha contains (descripción, datos del formulario, enlaces). It is clearly the single-item counterpart to the sibling listar_tramites, so an agent can tell it apart from the list and recommendation 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 names the prerequisite/source of the identifier ('de listar_tramites'), which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate and how to obtain its input. It does not state explicit exclusions (e.g., when to prefer que_tramite_necesito), so it stops 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.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context beyond that: it discloses the shape of each result (enlace de información y de solicitud), which is not in the annotations and there is no output schema to carry it. It doesn't mention pagination or catalog size, which is a minor remaining 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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the returned artifacts, then the optional filter — a sensible order with no wasted sentences. The parenthetical category list is long but informative rather than 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?

For a simple read-only catalog tool with one optional parameter, annotations covering safety and a description that describes what comes back despite having no output schema, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly. Only sibling routing is left implicit.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema as matching name or description. The description only signals that the filter exists and is optional, adding nothing about matching behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Lista los trámites que Zertidox ofrece hoy en España') and even enumerates the catalog categories and the links returned, so the agent knows exactly what this tool produces. It never names or contrasts itself with the siblings detalle_tramite or que_tramite_necesito, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 browsing the full catalog with an optional narrowing filter, which is a usable signal, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. An agent cannot tell from this text when to prefer this over detalle_tramite or que_tramite_necesito.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the result cap (up to 5), that links are included, and a non-legal-advice disclaimer, which is useful context but not deep behavioral detail.

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 carries the core behavior, the two parenthetical examples, and the result cap, followed by a short disclaimer. Efficient and readable with minimal waste.

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 correctly covers the return shape (up to 5 procedures with links) and caveats the nature of the output. For a one-parameter, read-only lookup this is largely sufficient; only sibling routing is absent.

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% and there is a single 'necesidad' parameter already documented as 'in the person's own words'. The description reinforces this with concrete natural-language examples but adds no syntax, format, or constraint 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 verb+resource with scope: takes a natural-language need and returns up to 5 matching Zertidox procedures with links. This is clear on its own, but it never names or contrasts against the siblings (listar_tramites, detalle_tramite), so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 examples ('certificado de antecedentes penales', 'valorar mi piso') imply when the tool applies, and the 'orientación informativa' line sets a soft expectation. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs listar_tramites or detalle_tramite, 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.