group_summary_by_department

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 mentions the grouping and output type but omits a key behavioral trait: the max_items_per_dept parameter limits how many dispositions are shown per department (default 10), so the description's promise of showing 'cuáles disposiciones' may be misleading. It also does not disclose whether sections filter affects results or any edge-case behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly communicates the tool's core function and output. There is no wasted verbiage, and every clause contributes meaningfully.

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 moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema), the description adequately explains the return value (grouped dispositions with counts). However, it omits the max_items_per_dept limit and section filtering behavior, which are important for setting expectations. Still, the schema covers parameter details, and the description covers the main output shape.

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 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining the grouping and the output (counts and dispositions), but it does not elaborate on parameter-specific formats or the effect of sections or max_items_per_dept beyond what the schema already states.

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 the tool obtains a BOE summary for a date range and groups publications by issuing department, showing counts and specific dispositions. This specific verb+resource+grouping clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_boe_summary_range and get_weekly_summary.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when a BOE summary grouped by department over a date range is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough to guide selection among the many summary-related siblings.

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