my_avisos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that results default to the caller's saved phone/email and that these can be overridden, which is useful, but it says nothing about read-only vs. write semantics, permissions, ordering, or result format for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource and then the filtering behavior. It is appropriately sized with little waste, though the parenthetical makes it slightly dense.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it never states the operation type, what an 'aviso' contains, ordering/pagination, or the return shape. The agent is left to infer most of what it needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it explains that userPhone/userEmail act as filters based on saved values and that they can be overridden per call. It still omits expected formats and whether both are optional, but it adds real meaning beyond the bare 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?

The phrase 'Comunicaciones del comunicante' identifies the resource (the caller's communications/avisos) but uses a noun phrase with no explicit verb, so the agent must infer that this is a retrieval/list operation. It does distinguish the tool from the create_* siblings by scoping to the caller's own records, but the action itself is only implied by the filtering clause.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus create_aviso, create_aviso_from_photo, or any sibling. The only usage hint ('se pueden sobrescribir para la llamada') explains parameter override behavior rather than selecting this tool over an alternative. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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