sma_search_sancionatorios

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the subject matter. It does not state that the operation is read-only, how results are returned, whether pagination or result caps apply, or what happens with empty/partial matches.

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 words. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing usage and behavioral detail noted elsewhere.

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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description identifies the domain clearly but omits return-format, result-volume, and matching-behavior context an agent would need to call it confidently. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 there is a single required 'query' parameter with an example in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, matching behavior, or format guidance beyond what the schema already documents.

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 ('Busca') and resource ('expedientes y procedimientos sancionatorios ambientales'), plus the authoritative source (SNIFA/SMA). It is distinguishable from nearby siblings like ambiental_buscar_jurisprudencia, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternative tools to prefer for a given case. An agent must infer from the source name alone when this search is appropriate versus ambiental_buscar_jurisprudencia or cmf_buscar_sanciones.

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