verificar_cita

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses possible results (VERIFICADA, NO_ENCONTRADA, NO_ENCONTRADA_CON_SIMILAR), two modes (estricta and tolerante), and confirms literal matching. No mention of side effects or rate limits, but for a read-only verification tool, disclosure is adequate.

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 relatively concise, using a few sentences to convey purpose, modes, and results. It is front-loaded with the main action. Could be formatted with bullet points for clarity, but no unnecessary 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?

Given 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides a good overview but omits details for 'ref' and 'articulo' parameters. The result types are listed, but no format or structure is given. Adequate for basic use, but incomplete for full understanding.

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 description must compensate. It explains 'texto' (input text) and 'modo' (strict/tolerant modes), but does not explain 'ref' or 'articulo' at all. With 4 parameters, only 2 are partially described, leaving gaps.

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 tool name 'verificar_cita' and description clearly state it verifies if a cited text exists literally in the corpus. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are for searching articles, rulings, etc.

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 explicitly says 'Usar sobre toda cita textual antes de responder' (use for every textual citation before answering), providing clear guidance. It does not give explicit exclusion or alternatives, but the context makes it clear this is the specific tool for citation verification.

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