DOF daily summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a summary/aggregate result shape with per-edition and per-organization counts, plus the empty-day returning total 0. It does not discuss rate limits or pagination behavior beyond what the limit param implies.

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: what it lists, the follow-up, and the empty-day behavior. Scope is front-loaded and every clause carries information the agent needs; nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 read-only listing tool with an output schema that already defines the return shape, the description still covers the two things an agent could get wrong: that the day may legitimately be empty and that ids should be fed to dof_get_note. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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%, and each of the four parameters has a precise description including the date format, the limit ceiling and the "counts always cover the whole day" caveat, plus an enum for edition. The description adds essentially no parameter-level detail beyond restating the one-day scope, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ("Lists") plus resource ("publications in the Diario Oficial de la Federación") with an explicit time scope ("for one day") and the aggregation it returns (counts by edition and issuing organization). It also positions itself against the sibling dof_get_note by naming it as the consumer of the returned ids, so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening either schema.

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 a clear next step ("Use the returned ids with dof_get_note") and a concrete edge-case rule ("Days without an issue (weekends, holidays) return total 0") that tells the agent not to treat empty results as failure. No explicit exclusion or comparison against dof_get_indicators, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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