Proyectos entrados al Parlamento

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: deduplication across legislatures ('cuenta una vez') and the fetch cost that the first search without a legislature downloads nine files. This is meaningful operational context.

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-loads the resource and scope, then adds the dedup rule and the download note. Compact and mostly waste-free; the download note is slightly tangential but still informative.

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 values need no explanation, and the description covers search criteria, deduplication and fetch behavior. Only the 'cantidad' limit is left unaddressed, so it is nearly complete for a search tool.

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 carries the burden. It clarifies 'buscar' (title text), 'legislatura', and 'tipo' (adding example values ley/resolución/minuta/declaración that the schema lacks as an enum), which is valuable. However, 'cantidad' (default 20) is never explained, leaving one of four parameters undocumented.

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 resource and scope: bills entered into Parliament since 1985 (legislatures 42–50), searchable by title, legislature or type. The verb 'entrados' plus the field list makes the retrieval purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'leyes' tool, which covers an adjacent domain, so it stops short of a 5.

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 grammar of the search (by text, legislature or type) is conveyed, implying how to use the parameters, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives like 'leyes'. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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