Surt de Casa (surtdecasa.cat)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burdenates. 'Retorna' signals a read-only retrieval with no apparent side effects, and the description adds concrete behavioral detail: the source website and the included link and poster fields. It does not discuss output format or failure behavior, but for a zero-parameter fetch these are secondary concerns.

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 a single sentence that places the action and result first, then the source, then the output elements. Every phrase contributes meaning and there is no filler or repetition.

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 zero-argument tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it states what is returned, where the data comes from, and what each result includes. An agent has what it needs to decide whether to call the tool and to interpret the result.

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 no properties and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4. The description reinforces that the tool is an unparameterized weekly listing, which is sufficient.

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 a specific verb ('Retorna') and a concrete resource ('les pel·lícules de la setmana a surtdecasa.cat'), and it also states what each result contains: an enllaç and a cartell. This clearly differentiates it from generic siblings like cercar_agenda, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with 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 implies this is the tool for weekly cinema listings from surtdecasa.cat, but it does not state when to use it instead of alternatives or provide any exclusions. An agent has to infer the use case from the domain rather than from explicit routing guidance.

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 are provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes a search operation (read-only), which is implicit but not explicitly stated. It does not disclose any side effects, pagination, limits, or authentication requirements. For a query tool, this is acceptable but not rich. It adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious 'search and filter' action.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and lists all major filter dimensions in a compact list. It avoids redundancy and fluff. While it is long, it packs useful information efficiently, earning a 4.

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?

Given the tool has 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and all filter options, which is sufficient for an agent to construct a valid request. However, it does not mention the return format (e.g., a list of event summaries) or that it is a read-only operation. Since the siblings include a detail tool, the agent can infer that this returns summaries, but explicit mention would improve completeness. Overall, it is adequate.

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%, with each parameter having a description and enums. The tool description essentially repeats the filter list without adding new semantics. For instance, the date format is already in the schema pattern, and the type enum is listed both places. The description adds no insight into parameter relationships, defaults, or edge cases beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific verb ('Cerca') and resource ('agenda de surtdecasa.cat'), and enumerates the available filters (zone, category, type, population, specific days, date range). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'cartellera' (cinema listings), 'detall_esdeveniment' (event details), and 'poblacions' (population lookup). An agent can immediately infer this is the event search 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 provides context on what filters are available and implies it is the tool for searching events, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus the sibling tools. There is no 'use this for X, use cartellera for Y' guidance, leaving the agent to infer from tool names. The context is clear enough for basic use but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns, which implies a read-only retrieval operation, but it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects or require authentication. Still, for a simple detail-fetching tool, 'Retorna' is reasonably 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, lists the returned content, and gives a necessary prerequisite. Every clause earns its place, and there is no verbose or redundant wording.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema, so the description is largely adequate. It covers what the tool returns, the required input, and where that input comes from. A clearer statement about output structure or read-only behavior would make it more complete, but nothing essential for calling it 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 schema already documents the single 'url' parameter with a concrete example, giving 100% coverage. The description adds extra meaning by stating that the URL must come from cercar_agenda, which clarifies the parameter's expected provenance beyond the schema's format example.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Retorna tota la informació d'un esdeveniment de l'agenda' and enumerates the types of information returned (dates, place, towns, price, description, links). It also links its input to cercar_agenda, distinguishing it from the search tool, though it does not explicitly contrast with cartellera or poblacions.

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 a practical usage prerequisite: it requires the URL or path returned by cercar_agenda. This tells the agent that a search should happen first, providing clear context for when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the implicit connection to cercar_agenda.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the input (prefix/fragment) and output (exact names), which is helpful, but it does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, result size limits, or error handling. For a simple autocomplete this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentences that lead with the core purpose and then the input-output contract. Every word adds value; there is no filler or redundant explanation.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough context: it defines what the tool does, what input it accepts, and how the results relate to another tool. The lack of explicit return-format details is a minor gap given the simplicity of the operation.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'terme' with the description 'Prefix o fragment del nom de població'. The tool description adds only a restatement of the same concept ('Passa-hi un prefix o fragment de nom') without introducing new semantic detail, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 clearly identifies the tool as an autocomplete for 'poblacions de surtdecasa.cat' and states exactly what it returns: the exact names accepted by the population filter of 'cercar_agenda'. This specific verb-plus-resource phrasing and the explicit connection to the sibling tool distinguish it from the other 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?

The description explains that the tool returns names accepted by the 'poblacio' filter of 'cercar_agenda', which indicates when this tool is useful: when populating that filter. It provides clear context and implies the workflow, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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