Buscar circulares y resoluciones de la UPME

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it warns that the tool returns PDFs, not full text, and highlights the critical date discrepancy between web publication and the actual norm date. These are non-obvious, high-impact behavioral traits that an agent must know.

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, each purposeful: first defines scope, second warns about PDF-only output, third warns about date semantics. There is zero fluff, and the most critical caveats are 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?

For a 4-parameter search tool without an output schema, the description covers what is searched, the PDF-only limitation, and the crucial date quirk. It omits details about result format or pagination, but the essential operational context is present and sufficient for correct invocation.

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 covers only 50% of parameters (texto and incluir_administrativos have descriptions). The description adds semantic context by giving example search topics (transmission, expansion plans) and mentioning administrative acts, but it does not clarify the behavior of limite or pagina. This partial compensation warrants a middle score.

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 specifies the tool's resource (UPME circulars and resolutions) and enumerates content types (transmission/gas calls, expansion plans, administrative acts). The explicit UPME name distinguishes it from sibling sector-specific tools like buscar_resoluciones_creg and buscar_normativa_anh, and the verb is implied by the tool name and title.

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 clear context of when to use the tool by listing its coverage areas and the issuing entity. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the specificity strongly implies the intended use case.

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