cbr_checklist_documentos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Retorna' implies a read-only lookup and the phrase 'checklist oficial' signals an authoritative fixed reference, but there is no statement about the response format, sourcing, or whether the checklist varies by jurisdiction beyond the property type.

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 no wasted wording. The parenthetical document list is compact and informative rather than padding.

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 absence of an output schema, the description usefully previews the return contents by naming the document categories. It is adequate for a simple one-parameter lookup, though it stops short of usage routing or noting how the property type changes the checklist.

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%, so tipo_inmueble and its accepted values are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond it, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retorna el checklist oficial de documentos requeridos para un estudio de títulos en Chile') and enumerates the document categories it covers (GP 30 años, dominio vigente, DOM, TGR). This is clearly distinguished from the sibling cbr_estudio_titulos, which performs the study rather than listing the required documents.

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 offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or prerequisites, and does not mention alternatives such as cbr_estudio_titulos. Usage must be inferred purely from the stated purpose.

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