Pedidos de informes de Diputados y si se contestaron

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: only requests past the 45-day legal deadline are counted, and responses arrive late so recent requests always look less answered. That is exactly the kind of caveat an agent could not infer from 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?

Front-loaded with what is counted and the legal-deadline scope, then filter behavior, then the cohort caveat last. Dense but every sentence contributes a distinct fact; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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, and the description still covers aggregation scope, filter semantics, date format, and the interpretation hazard. For a 4-parameter read tool this leaves nothing material missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load and largely does: `organismo`/`tema` are text filters that must be written without accents, `presentados_hasta` is AAAA-MM-DD and defines the cohort. Only `cantidad` (page size) goes unexplained, which is a small residual gap.

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 the concrete resource (pedidos de informes de Diputados), the legal basis (artículo 118) and precisely what the output aggregates: answered counts per organismo and semester, plus counts per party. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling parliamentary tools like leyes or proyectos_parlamento, though it never names them 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?

It gives real usage context — use `presentados_hasta` to compare a fixed cohort, and read `nota` before comparing — but never states when to prefer this over siblings or what it is not for. Guidance is implied and conditional rather than an explicit when/when-not rule.

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