cbr_checklist_documentos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds that the returned content is the 'checklist oficial' with named document types, which is useful scope, but says nothing about format, permissions, or limits. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the parenthetical enumerates the concrete document categories, each word earning 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?

For a read-only reference tool with no output schema, one well-documented parameter, and annotations covering safety, the description is essentially sufficient. It could be complete with a note on how tipo_inmueble alters the checklist, but nothing critical 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 the sole parameter (tipo_inmueble) is fully documented in the schema with its default. The description never mentions the property-type parameter or how it changes the checklist. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does all the work.

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?

Specific verb 'Retorna' plus a precise resource: the official document checklist for a Chilean title study, itemizing the actual document categories (GP 30 años, dominio vigente, DOM, TGR). An agent immediately knows this is a static reference lookup, not the study itself. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling cbr_estudio_titulos, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies usage (fetch the required-documents checklist before/while doing a title study) but never states when to select this tool versus cbr_estudio_titulos or any other sibling. There are no exclusions or prerequisite conditions. Implied context only, nothing explicit.

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