sma_search_sancionatorios

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and scope profile is covered. The description adds the concrete data source (SNIFA/SMA), which is useful context, but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or whether the search is fuzzy vs exact, so it does not go far beyond the structured fields.

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 filler. The action, resource, and source are all stated immediately and nothing is wasted.

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 read-only search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials but omits routing guidance relative to its many siblings and any hint of what the results contain. Adequate but leaves clear gaps an agent would have to guess at.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%; the schema already explains that query is a sanctioned company or titleholder name and gives examples ('Minera', 'Poblacion', 'D-160'). The description adds no additional meaning about matching behavior, so the baseline 3 applies.

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), a specific resource (expedientes y procedimientos sancionatorios ambientales), and the authoritative source (SNIFA de la SMA). It is unambiguous what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from closely related siblings such as ambiental_buscar_jurisprudencia, ambiental_consulta_maestra, or cmf_buscar_sanciones, so an agent has no signal for picking this over them.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. With several sanction/jurisprudence search siblings in the list, the absence of any routing condition is a real gap.

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