Eva Aviso

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the result is the full text of a notice, but does not mention read-only behavior, authentication requirements, possible errors, or any side effects.

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 a single, compact phrase with no redundant wording. It front-loads the core purpose and keeps the parameter clarification parenthetical, which is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 is simple with one required parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return shape. However, it lacks usage guidance and any behavioral context such as authentication or read-only status, leaving some gaps for an agent deciding to invoke 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'id de la discusión' adds meaning by clarifying that discusion_id identifies the notice/discussion to fetch, which is helpful, but it does not explain the id's format or provenance.

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 the tool provides the full text of a notice via its discussion id, which clearly identifies the resource and action. It distinguishes from the sibling eva_avisos by emphasizing 'full text' of a single notice, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as eva_avisos. The intended use is only implied by the description and the parameter name, leaving the agent to infer the selection logic.

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