list_my_avisos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool reads previously registered notices and returns their processing status, but does not state read-only safety, authentication requirements, pagination, or return format.

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 a single sentence, front-loading the action. However, it redundantly uses 'Consulta' and 'para consultar', slightly reducing efficiency.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the basic purpose and the type of information returned (processing status). However, it omits usage context, behavioral traits, and return format details, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics. Per the rubric, zero parameters yields a baseline score of 4.

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 states a specific verb ('Consulta') and resource ('avisos'), and adds the scoping detail that these are the user's previously registered notices, queried to check processing status. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools (e.g., list_ayuntamientos, list_categories), but the resource is distinct enough for an agent to distinguish.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites stated. The purpose implies usage, but the description does not explicitly say when an agent should select this over other listing tools.

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