Buscar trámites gubernamentales en gob.ec

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 that passing institution_id produces 'relevant results,' which is useful behavioral context for result quality. It does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or result ordering, but with annotations and an output schema present, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is two compact sentences, front-loads the core action, and immediately follows with the most important parameter guidance. Every sentence contributes directly to correct invocation, with no filler.

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?

The tool has an output schema, annotations, and full schema descriptions, so return values and safety do not need explanation. The description adds the key institution ID mappings and points to list_instituciones, making it nearly complete for correct use. Minor gaps remain for query syntax and pagination behavior, but the schema covers them.

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 would be 3. However, the description adds valuable semantic mappings for institution_id (SRI=8, IESS=5, Registro Civil=23, ANT=62, Cancillería=16), which go beyond the schema. It also points to list_instituciones for other IDs, improving parameter meaning.

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: 'Search gob.ec government procedures (trámites).' This clearly identifies what the tool does and the domain. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from all search-oriented siblings, but the resource is specific enough that an agent can identify its purpose.

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?

The description gives concrete usage guidance: pass institution_id for relevant results, including common institution ID mappings, and directs users to list_instituciones for others. This is clear context and an alternative for obtaining IDs. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the guidance is strong for this type of search tool.

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