Consultar un perfil sectorial preconfigurado

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains that the tool runs preconfigured sources/filters, returns profile results with sector, warning, date, and disclaimer, and that each profile declares its own scope/limits. This goes beyond surface-level description, though it omits details like error handling or authentication, preventing a 5.

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 sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what it does, the second explains the output and profile limitations, and the third provides explicit negative guidance. There is no redundancy or fluff, making it concise and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main operational context: preconfigured sources, profiles, output contents, and usage boundaries. However, it lacks a detailed breakdown of the return structure or behavior on invalid inputs, which would be needed for a perfect 5. The presence of sibling-tool references adds contextual completeness.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including valid profile IDs, the 'texto' example, and the 'limite' range. The description adds little beyond the schema—mainly repeating profile names and giving usage context. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description does not meaningfully enhance parameter understanding.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Ejecuta una consulta con las fuentes y los filtros preconfigurados de un perfil', clearly identifying the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from siblings by listing profile types and explicitly referencing alternative tools like buscar_normas and resolver_cita, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance by naming the profiles and instructing to use describir_fuentes for the list of profiles. It also contains a clear negative directive: 'NO uses un perfil para lo que no cubre' and points to buscar_normas or resolver_cita for other matters, leaving no ambiguity about when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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