Ver reportes SITREP de un evento SGR

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by clarifying that it returns links rather than contents, which is the key output trait an agent needs to know.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler. The core distinction — what it returns and what it does not — is front-loaded and immediately useful.

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, annotations covering safety, and complete parameter schema coverage, the description only needs to state purpose and the links-vs-contents distinction. It does exactly that, so nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates where evento_url comes from (search_sgr_sitreps's URL field), which the schema already documents, and it says nothing about the format parameter; it adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond structured fields.

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 states a specific resource (SITREP PDF links), scope (national, provincial, cantonal), and source (one SGR event page from search_sgr_sitreps). It explicitly says 'Returns links, not contents,' which sharply distinguishes it from content-reading siblings like read_pdf.

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?

It implies the tool should be used after search_sgr_sitreps by naming that sibling as the source of the event URL. It also implicitly differentiates from content tools via 'not contents,' but it never states when not to use this tool or names an explicit alternative for reading the PDFs.

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