consultar_formulario_pr

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond those annotations: it preserves cookies and hidden ASP.NET fields, rejects agent-supplied hidden fields, and requires a preliminary page read. This is valuable but does not fully characterize all behaviors such as error handling or pagination.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each subsequent sentence adds operational or exclusionary value without redundancy or filler. It covers purpose, workflow, technical constraints, and non-goals in just three sentences.

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 tool's complexity—ASP.NET forms, cookies, hidden fields—and the availability of an output schema, the description provides essential workflow guidance and exclusions. The main gap is the undocumented 'indice' parameter, which could be important for selecting among multiple results or form instances. Still, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to call 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?

The input schema has no parameter descriptions and a 0% schema coverage. The description compensates partially for the 'campos' parameter by explaining that real field names and option values must come from reading the page first, and that hidden fields from the agent are not accepted. 'url' is implicitly clear from the page-reading instruction, but 'indice' is not explained at all.

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 identifies the tool as consulting registered public forms related to processes/sanctions/defaulters, with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the scope is specific enough to distinguish it from the many other portal tools in the sibling list.

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 clear operational context: read the page first to discover real field names and option values, and explicitly states when not to use the tool (login, requests, petitions, data submission). It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling tools should be used in those excluded cases, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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