idealista_click

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether clicking navigates, submits a form, triggers side effects, waits for a page load, requires prior read state, or what happens on failure.

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 definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It is concise and readable, though its brevity leaves several behavioral gaps that a slightly longer definition could address.

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 simple one-parameter click tool, the description gives enough information to identify the target element. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should do more to explain post-click behavior, dependencies on the last read, and potential page navigation or side effects.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains that "element" is an element number from the last read. The description adds only the page context and the word "numbered," so it does not meaningfully extend parameter meaning beyond the 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 description uses a specific verb and resource: "Click a numbered element," making the action clear. It scopes the action to "the current Idealista page," but it does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like idealista_open or idealista_type.

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 phrase "numbered element on the current Idealista page" implies that element numbers come from a prior read and that the tool acts on the active page. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison with alternatives such as idealista_open, idealista_read, or idealista_type.

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