ITV España y farmacias de guardia Madrid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully adds two behavioral facts not in structured fields: pagination is capped at 50 and a $0.01 USDC cost applies when payments are active. However, it says nothing about return shape, whether the cost is per-request or per-item, or any auth/payment prerequisite, leaving real gaps for a paid endpoint.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: resource and filters first, then pagination and pricing. The telegraphic style ('hasta 50; $0.01 USDC cuando pagos activos') trades a little readability for density but every clause carries information.

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 search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the filtering dimensions, pagination cap, and cost, which is most of what an agent needs. It stops short of describing the response contents or clarifying that all filters are optional, so it is adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'por municipio o CCAA' maps to the municipio/ccaa filters, and 'consulta paginada hasta 50' explains limit/offset and imposes a real cap of 50 that the schema (max ~9e15) does not. It does not spell out offset semantics explicitly, but the pagination phrase conveys it. This is a meaningful improvement over the bare 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?

The description names a specific resource (estaciones del registro oficial 2026) and the two filter dimensions (municipio, CCAA), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. The verb is only implied by the tool name (buscar), and it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings, but the sibling set (ITV-related tools, dataset request) has no obvious overlap so differentiation is not needed.

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?

Usage is implied: query stations filtered by municipality or autonomous community, paginated. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over alternatives or which filters are required/optional, and no exclusion guidance is offered. For a narrowly scoped lookup sibling-free tool this is minimally acceptable.

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, so the description must carry the full burden. It usefully discloses that no booking occurs and that there is a micro-payment ($0.01 USDC) tied to a verified link — real behavioral context. However it omits what 'verified' means, who verifies, or what the returned link is.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Efficient but the pricing clause is cryptic out of context and the whole thing reads like a pricing note rather than a tool contract.

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 3-param, 0%-coverage tool with no annotations and no output schema requires far more explanation. Neither the parameters, the return value, nor the 'verified' mechanism is explained.

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 0% with 3 undocumented parameters (ccaa, municipio, station_id). The description gives no hint about these fields, their format, or whether station_id is required instead of location. Complete failure to compensate for the schema gap.

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 says 'Enlace de cita del operador' (operator's appointment link) which suggests returning a booking deep-link, but 'cita_itv' plus the fields ccaa/municipio/station_id suggest an appointment booking tool. The negation 'nunca reserva una cita' clarifies it does NOT book, leaving a muddled picture of what it actually returns.

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 precondition 'sólo cuando verificado' implies use only after verification, and the pricing sentence implies a gating condition (verified link = $0.01). But it never names a sibling alternative or a clearer when-to-use vs. buscar_estaciones / tarifa_itv.

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 discloses that the output covers dataset coverage, provenance, and limits, and that it is free ('Gratis'), implying no paid/auth barrier. It does not state whether the call is read-only, what format the metadata takes, or any rate limits, so it is only partially transparent.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the key noun 'Cobertura' and no filler. It is efficient, though extremely terse rather than optimally informative.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, so the description is the only source of information — yet it leaves the dataset identity, return shape, and relationship to the dataset-related siblings unexplained. For an informational tool it should do more.

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 nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline for a no-parameter 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?

The phrase 'Cobertura, fuente y límites del dataset' names the resources returned (coverage, source, limits), so the agent can infer this is an informational dataset-metadata tool. However it is a bare noun list with no verb, and it gives no indication of which dataset or how it differs from the sibling 'solicitar_dataset'.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as solicitar_dataset or buscar_estaciones. 'Gratis' hints at cost but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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, and it does disclose meaningful traits: it is free, defaults to the current schedule (Europe/Madrid) when date is omitted, and explicitly does not fabricate openings when there is no coverage. It also names the data source and license. It omits rate limits, auth, and result format, so not 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 core resource and filters, then the default behavior, then provenance. Two dense sentences with little waste, though the licensing/source sentence is not strictly needed for invocation.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should describe return shape, but it does not. For a zero-required-param, read-style lookup tool it covers the main logic and the anti-hallucination guarantee, but leaves pagination (limit/offset) and result format unaddressed.

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 60%; the description explains the date/now interplay ('si se omite fecha') and the barrio/address meaning of area, matching schema intent. However limit and offset are documented in neither schema nor description, and the text adds no pagination or format detail, so it only partially compensates.

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 resource (farmacias de guardia), scope (Madrid ciudad), and the two lookup keys (fecha or barrio). It is trivially distinguishable from all siblings, which are ITV/dataset tools, so an agent can select it purely from the name plus this line.

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 conditional behavior ('si se omite fecha, filtra el horario en curso') and cost ('Gratis'), which implies usage, but never states when to choose this over alternatives or any prerequisite/exclusion. Usage is only inferable, not explicit.

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 behavioral burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful non-schema trait: a $0.01 USDC cost when payments are active. However, it omits the return format, any prerequisite conditions, and what the flagged 'excepciones' actually mean operationally.

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 clauses with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The appended pricing sentence is compact, though it slightly interrupts the conceptual flow of the domain description.

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, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should do more work than this terse snippet. It leaves the special_use parameter and the enum semantics undocumented and gives no sense of what the returned periodicity data looks like.

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 0%, so the description should compensate, and it only partially does: 'categoría y antigüedad' conceptually map to category and age_years, but the special_use boolean is never mentioned and the category enum values (M1, N1, L1e, L_otros) are left unexplained.

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?

Names a specific resource (ITV periodicity) and the two governing dimensions (category and age), so the agent understands it computes inspection frequency. It differentiates itself from siblings like tarifa_itv (rate) and cita_itv (appointment) by focusing on periodicity, though it never explicitly contrasts them.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never names an alternative among the five sibling tools. The 'según BOE' clause indicates the authority for the rule but not the invocation context.

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, and it does add real context: 'Gratis' and especially that only the request and CCAA are stored, with no personal data. What is missing is the outcome behavior — whether it returns a confirmation, is queued, or has a turnaround — so an agent proposing this mutation to a user lacks the follow-up picture.

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 short sentences, front-loading the action and the pricing/privacy caveats with essentially no filler. Terse and well-ordered, though the last clause slightly overlaps the existing schema note on 'tema'.

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 low-complexity, 2-parameter submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, and data handling. It should still say what the agent receives after submitting (confirmation, ticket, timing), which is the one meaningful 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 50%: 'tema' is documented in the schema, while 'ccaa' has only maxLength=80 with no description. The description partially compensates by naming CCAA as a stored field (implying a region), but it gives no format/values for ccaa, so the parameter story remains half-told.

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 (solicitar) plus resource (nuevo dataset administrativo español / más cobertura ITV), so the action is unambiguous. It is clearly distinct in kind from the siblings (cita_itv, cobertura, tarifa_itv, etc.), but it never names an alternative or explicitly contrasts itself, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied — request a dataset that does not yet exist, or more ITV coverage, at no cost. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no precondition, and no routing to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer the trigger.

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 load, and it does disclose a real behavioral trait: a two-tier billing model (free approximate vs paid exact). That is more than the schema provides. However, it omits how the charge is triggered/authorized, what 'unverified' or 'incompleta' actually mean for a given request, and what happens when parameters are missing – significant gaps for a paid 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the pricing dimensions before the cost caveat. Every clause carries information; the telegraphic noun-phrase style is tight rather than padded, though it reads more like a label than a full instruction.

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?

An 8-parameter pricing tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to explain return shape and input sufficiency, and it does neither. It never says what a response looks like, which parameters are needed for a valid quote, or what the free 'incompleta' result actually contains, so an agent must guess.

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 only 13% and 8 parameters are largely undocumented. The description names three concepts (región→ccaa, operador→operator, vehículo→vehicle) but adds no format, requiredness, or meaning for the remaining five (municipio, inspection, station_id, engine_cc, fuel). It does not compensate for the coverage gap as the low-coverage case requires.

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 the resource and its axes explicitly: 'Tarifa por región, operador y vehículo' – an agent knows this returns ITV pricing keyed on those dimensions, which distinguishes it from cita_itv (booking) and periodicidad_itv (frequency). It stops short of a verb and never names the siblings it differs from, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use versus buscar_estaciones or cita_itv. The one genuinely useful signal is the cost condition – free for unverified/incomplete data, $0.01 USDC only for an exact verified price – which implicitly tells the agent to weigh whether a paid exact quote is warranted, but the alternative (accept the free approximate value) is never framed as such.

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