enaho_buscar_variable

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations: it consults a pre-built index without downloading data, and it discloses error semantics for non-indexed surveys (clear error instead of misleading 'not found'). It also previews the grouped results and pagination, which are not in 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?

The description is concise yet information-dense, with clear sections: purpose, usage guidance, scope/limitations, and return format. It front-loads the primary purpose and gives actionable advice without wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema and strong annotations, the description fills key gaps: when to use, performance characteristics, coverage limitations, and error behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to decide whether to invoke this tool and what to expect.

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 describes all 7 parameters with high coverage (100%), so the description need not elaborate on each. It does add conceptual context about the default survey scope and the encuesta override, but this largely mirrors the schema's encuesta description. Overall, the description adds modest value 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?

The description opens with a clear statement of purpose: 'Encuentra en que modulo y con que nombre esta una variable.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by describing it as the most-used, cheapest tool that queries a pre-built index without downloading microdata, making its role unique among the provided sibling 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 explicitly instructs 'Empieza SIEMPRE por aqui cuando no sepas el nombre exacto de una variable,' which is strong guidance. It also explains the default ENAHO scope, the ability to override with `encuesta`, and the coverage limitation of 16/67 surveys, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other scenarios.

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