search_ine_tables

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

The description lacks behavioral details such as whether the tool is read-only, required permissions, rate limits, or what the response contains. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and fails to disclose important behavioral traits.

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 a single, clear sentence that is appropriately front-loaded. It earns its place by being concise, though it could benefit from slightly more detail about what 'tables' means in this context.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what information about the tables is returned (e.g., IDs, names, metadata), nor does it clarify the scope or limitations of the search. This leaves an agent without enough context to use the tool 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?

The schema already provides a description for 'operation_id' with examples. The tool description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool searches for tables within a specific INE operation, using a specific verb and resource. It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like 'get_ine_table_data' (which retrieves data from a table) and 'get_ine_operation' (which gets operation metadata).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not indicate prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over similar tools like 'get_ine_table_data' or 'get_ine_operation'.

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