Buscar resoluciones de la CREG (energía y gas)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the unique full-text access capability, the separate compilations (vigentes/derogadas), and the critical literal-signal rule ('Esa señal se traslada literal; no la conviertas en un sí o un no'). While it doesn't detail return structure or pagination, it provides substantial behavioral context beyond the baseline.

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 three dense sentences with no filler, containing only high-value information. The use of caps for key directives (ÚSALA, NO, ÚNICA) aids scanning, though it is slightly emphatic. Every sentence earns its place, but the length is near the upper bound of conciseness.

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 fully compensates by covering what the tool searches, sector scope, how to access full text (via obtener_documento), the vigencia literalness nuance, when not to use it, and alternative tools. This provides everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the default behavior of anio ('SIN ÉL solo se mira el año en curso, que trae muy pocas') and contextualizing compilacion with the explanation of separate compilations and literal signal transfer, exceeding the schema's basic property descriptions.

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 'Busca las resoluciones de la Comisión de Regulación de Energía y Gas' with a specific verb+resource, lists the sector topics (tarifas, conexión, comercialización, plantas solares, gas natural), and explicitly distinguishes from siblings by noting it is the only sectorial source and excluding laws/decrees with resolver_cita/buscar_normas.

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 provides explicit positive guidance ('ÚSALA para la regulación energética y de gas'), explicit negative guidance ('NO sirve para leyes o decretos nacionales de otros sectores'), names alternative tools (resolver_cita, buscar_normas), and directs to obtener_documento with fuente='creg' for full text, leaving no ambiguity about when to use this tool.

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