Listando cuadernillos

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does disclose valuable traits: results include pdf_url, an empty fecha defaults to the latest publications, and the range is capped at 7 days inclusive per call. It omits permissions/auth, pagination, and the full return shape, so it adds context but not a complete behavioral picture.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact Args block. Every line carries useful information with no filler; only minor stylistic roughness prevents a 5.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description names the key returned field (pdf_url) and the important 7-day range constraint. Given the absence of annotations, this is a fairly complete picture for a list tool, though pagination and result ordering are left unstated.

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, and it largely does: it enumerates accepted date formats (YYYYMMDD, AAAA-MM-DD, DD/MM/AAAA), explains the empty-value default, clarifies fecha_fin's optional rango semantics and 7-day limit, and gives an example sigla for tipo. This meaningfully exceeds what the bare schema provides.

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 verb (Lista) and resource (cuadernillos publicados) plus the scope (published in a date or range, with pdf_url). An agent distinguishes it from the singular obtener_*/descargar_* siblings. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the other listar_* tool (listar_tipos_publicacion), keeping it from 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?

Usage is implied by the fecha/fecha_fin mechanics and the note that an empty fecha returns the latest published items, which tells the agent how to get 'most recent'. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus descargar_cuadernillo, obtener_cuadernillo_texto, or the buscar_* siblings, so the routing decision is inferred rather than stated.

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