Actuaciones del receptor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about the returned field ('fecha_diligencia' vs 'fecha_registro') and the data source (ebook omission), which goes beyond the annotations.

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?

Three short, information-dense sentences: one names the resource, one explains its significance, one gives a precise output directive. No wasted words, and the key instruction 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 a rich input schema and an output schema present, the description doesn't need to repeat field details. It adds the missing context about why this tool is important (procedural deadlines) and which field to rely on, making it sufficiently complete for the tool's purpose.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description does not add additional parameter meanings, staying at the baseline of 3.

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 identifies the resource ('actuaciones del ministro de fe') and the key behavior (returning 'fecha_diligencia' rather than 'fecha_registro'). It distinguishes from sibling search tools by focusing on a specific record type, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'obtener' in the description itself.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need the real diligence date for procedural deadlines, which the official ebook omits. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or mention when not to use it, but the context implies the appropriate scenario.

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