Asistencia de legisladores (Parlamento)

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing the aggregation shape (min/max attendance), the filtering side effect of minimo_citaciones, and a genuine edge-case warning that duplicate names may be homonyms. It does not discuss pagination or how many rows are returned by default.

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 dense sentence plus a short warning sentence carries the output shape, filter rationale, and the homonym caveat with essentially no filler. It is slightly run-on, but the core (what is computed and for which chamber/legislature) 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?

With an output schema present, return formatting need not be explained, and annotations handle the safety profile. Still, for a 5-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the unexplained `cantidad` parameter leaves a real gap an agent must guess at to invoke it correctly.

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 the description must compensate: it explains legislatura's range (46–50), the purpose of minimo_citaciones, and that nombre filters rows containing that string (implying substring match). But `cantidad` (default 10) is never explained — presumably row count — and `camara` is only indirectly covered by 'Senado o Diputados'. Partial compensation, not full.

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 names a specific resource (attendance to Senate/Deputy sessions in a legislature) and specifies what it returns: the lowest and highest attendance among legislators meeting minimo_citaciones, plus rows matching nombre. This is concrete enough to distinguish it from the parliamentary siblings (leyes, proyectos_parlamento, resultados_electorales), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Useful constraints are implied — the legislatura window (46–50, 'la actual') and the rationale for minimo_citaciones (avoiding substitutes with only two citations) guide filtering choices. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus another, and no mention of what happens when the filters return nothing.

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