cl_notaria

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results include source and status per field and that price calculation is out of scope, but it never states whether the tool is read-only, what data source/authority it uses, whether results are current, or what happens with missing records. Significant behavioral gaps remain.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the scope boundary is front-loaded after the resource statement. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of much needed detail handled in other dimensions.

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 two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is too thin. It gives a partial sense of the returned record but omits parameter meaning, selection guidance, and behavioral guarantees. An agent would need to inspect the schema and guess how to call 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 description coverage is 0% for q and ficha, and the description never explains either parameter. It does not say whether q is a search term, whether ficha selects a specific record, how the two interact, or what the empty-string defaults mean. The agent cannot confidently populate the inputs from this text.

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 names a specific resource—a notarial procedure record—and says it carries source and status per field, so the agent knows the domain. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than a clear verb and gives no explicit differentiation from siblings such as cl_documento or cl_buscar; 'No calcula precios' is the only boundary. The purpose is understandable but vague.

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 only guidance is the negative constraint that it does not calculate prices. It does not say when to choose cl_notaria over cl_buscar, cl_documento, cl_cobertura, or the other siblings, nor does it state prerequisites. Usage selection is left to inference.

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