Buscar archivos publicados por una institución

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value with 'Links, not contents,' telling the agent it returns references rather than file bodies. It stops short of describing auth or rate 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?

Front-loaded with purpose in the first clause, then a compact inline list. No wasted framing. The long fuente enumeration is informative rather than padding, though it partially duplicates the schema enum.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers purpose, source meanings, and the 'links not contents' caveat, which is nearly everything an agent needs to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the raw enum by glossing each fuente value (e.g., 'censo (Census 2022)', 'msp (vaccine gazettes)', 'senae (fiscal)'), which genuinely helps catalog selection. It adds nothing for limit/offset/query/format, which the schema already handles.

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 concrete verb+resource: returns 'file links from one institution's catalog, filtered by text.' The scope is clear and the source enum is enumerated. It does not explicitly name a sibling it competes with (e.g., get_archivo_seccion), so it stops short of 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'filtered by text' and the enumerated catalogs. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative-tool guidance (e.g., when to prefer search_anda or list_archivo_secciones over this). Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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