es__get_compliance_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states what the tool returns and references a law, but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description is too brief to cover transparency needs.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no unnecessary words, and prioritizes the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is relatively complete for a simple getter. It explains the returned data and cites legal context. However, it could mention if any return values are conditional, but overall it is satisfactory.

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?

All 4 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only repeats the overall purpose. Baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns 'mandate terms and operating system' for a company profile, using a specific verb ('Devuelve') and resource ('plazos de mandato vigentes y sistema operativo'). It is distinct from sibling tools, which are primarily submission, generation, or validation tools.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any prerequisites. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of context or exclusions, making it merely implied.

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