Buscar resoluciones de la CREG (energía y gas)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this is the only sectoral source whose text is readable here, that it is the only one publishing a vigencia signal, that the signal comes in separate compilations (vigentes vs derogadas), and warns not to reduce that signal to a boolean. Missing auth/rate-limit or return-shape notes, but the behavioral quirks disclosed are substantive.

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 resource scope, then the differentiating traits, then the routing instruction. Dense with useful caveats and no filler, though the parenthetical about how to interpret the vigencia signal is a touch long.

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-param search tool with no output schema and no annotations, it covers scope, sibling routing, and the key vigencia caveat. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only return format details are absent, which is a minor 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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, including the compilacion enum and the anio default behavior. The description adds the meaning of the vigencia signal in the results, but does not extend parameter syntax beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (buscar) and resource (resoluciones de la CREG) with the topical scope spelled out (tarifas, conexión, comercialización, plantas solares, gas natural). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming resolver_cita and referencing obtener_documento, so an agent can tell it apart without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Para leyes o decretos nacionales de otros sectores usa resolver_cita,' and points to obtener_documento(fuente="creg") as the way to read full text. This is clear when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else guidance.

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