Buscar registros exclusivos de BIINEC

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable scope information—'small curated list', 'found nowhere else', 'not a live BIINEC search'—which tells the agent about data coverage and search nature beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the tool's identity and followed by its usage caveat. No words are wasted and the structure is easy to parse.

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 low complexity (2 simple parameters, 100% schema coverage, output schema present, and annotations covering safety), the description provides everything an agent needs: what the tool is, what it is not, and when to use it.

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 both parameters (query and format) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb and resource: a curated list of INEC BIINEC registries found nowhere else, with an example (environmental modules). It distinguishes itself from a live BIINEC search, but does not name a specific sibling tool, so it falls just short of the highest clarity.

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 explicitly says to use this as 'a last resort' and clarifies that it is 'not a live BIINEC search', giving clear context and an exclusion. However, it does not name an alternative live-search tool to use first, so it stops short of the top score.

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