Buscar informes sísmicos y volcánicos del IG-EPN

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: this returns archive references (PDF reports), and reading a report is a separate step via get_informe_igepn, which tells the agent the result is a pointer list rather than content.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the routing hints compressed into a single clause each.

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 and 100% parameter coverage, the description need not explain return values or argument syntax. It covers purpose, filtering axes, and the sibling handoff; the only omission is any note on pagination/truncation behavior given the limit cap, which is minor.

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%, including defaults, the enum values, and the max=30 limit, so the schema carries parameter semantics on its own. The description's "by year and group" merely restates two of the five parameters without adding format or syntax detail.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (search IG-EPN's PDF report archive) plus the exact content scope (seismic bulletins and volcanic alerts/reports) and the filtering axes (year, group). It is immediately distinguishable from get_informe_igepn and search_sismos, which it names explicitly.

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?

Gives both the follow-up path ("Next: get_informe_igepn to read one") and an explicit exclusion with the alternative ("For raw earthquake data use search_sismos"). An agent knows when to pick this tool and what to do after the result.

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