Horarios de cortes de luz por sector

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine domain behavior: it parses exactly one PDF, and location meaning differs by distributor (EEQ substation vs Centrosur province/canton/zone). It omits error handling and parsing limits.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output fields, followed by the filtering detail. No filler or restatement of the name/title.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't detail return values, and it adequately covers scope, source and filtering. It could still note behavior for malformed/ambiguous PDFs, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 a 3 is the baseline. The description adds meaning about the `distribuidora` parameter by explaining that it drives whether location is reported as a substation (EEQ) or province/canton/zone (Centrosur), and clarifies that `query` filters by place, giving it a slight lift over the schema alone.

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 (parse), a specific resource (one power-cut PDF) and the exact output shape: date, time blocks, location, sectors. It also situates itself relative to search_cortes by naming where the `archivo` comes from, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling search tool.

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 makes the workflow explicit: take the `archivo` from search_cortes and parse it, with `query` filtering by place. This is clear context for when to use it, but it names no exclusions or failure conditions (e.g., what to do if the PDF is malformed) to reach a 5.

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