Buscar cronogramas de cortes de luz

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description is free to add content-level context: the results are PDFs, from two specific utilities, over defined regions and years. That helps an agent know the nature and freshness of the underlying material, though it says nothing about result volume or pagination.

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 dense sentences, zero filler, with the resource definition front-loaded ahead of the workflow pointer. Every clause carries information.

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 annotations and an output schema present, the description needs only to establish scope and workflow, which it does. It is complete for correct invocation, though it could mention the read_pdf/download path for actually consuming the returned PDFs.

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 enriches the distribuidora enum by mapping eeq and centrosur to their geographic and temporal scope, which the schema alone does not convey. The query and format parameters are left entirely to the schema.

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 resource (scheduled power-cut PDFs) scoped to two named utilities with their coverage regions and years, and distinguishes itself from the sibling get_cortes_horarios by framing that tool as the next step. An agent can identify exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the follow-up tool ('Next: get_cortes_horarios with a file's archivo'), giving a clear workflow. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool or contrasting it against other search_* siblings, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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