tramit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation, but nothing is said about authentication, rate limits, or whether a missing/invalid code errors out. It discloses almost nothing beyond the implied read-only nature.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but for a tool with two undocumented parameters and zero annotations the description should say more about the required 'code' and the 'lang' option. As written, an agent cannot confidently construct a call.

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%, so both parameters ('code' and 'lang') are undocumented in the schema. The description only indirectly hints that the code identifies the procedure page; it never explains the code format, what 'lang' controls, or that 'lang' defaults to Catalan.

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 (read) and resource (e-tramits procedure page), and the word 'one' signals single-record retrieval as opposed to the sibling tramits_search. It is clear enough to distinguish the fetch from the search, though the fragmentary phrasing adds no scope detail.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to the sibling tramits_search. At best 'one ... page' weakly implies a single-item lookup rather than a search, which is inference rather than guidance.

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