leer_autoridad_publica

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It signals a non-destructive read action ('Lee') and discloses important limitations, such as rejecting secondary sources and not assessing validity or subsequent treatment. It does not mention failure modes, authentication, or rate limits, but the core behavior is reasonably transparent for a read-only tool.

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 three sentences with no redundancy: it states the core action and output, gives the intended use case, and lists limitations. Each sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The description adequately covers purpose, use case, and limitations, and an output schema exists for return-value details. However, the complete absence of parameter guidance for 'consulta' and 'max_pasajes', combined with zero schema descriptions, leaves a notable gap in the knowledge needed to use the tool fully.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate. 'url' is only indirectly inferable as the authority to read, while 'consulta' and 'max_pasajes' are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use the optional parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Lee'), a precise resource type ('autoridad primaria pública'), and a concrete outcome ('devuelve pasajes textuales verificables'). It also distinguishes itself from related tools by explicitly stating that it rejects secondary sources and does not determine vigencia or tratamiento posterior.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: to verify documents discovered by legal-research tools before citing them as support. It also gives clear negative guidance ('Rechaza fuentes secundarias', 'no determina vigencia ni tratamiento posterior'), but it does not name a specific alternative tool for those excluded cases.

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