Listando filtros

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape (dict with 'ok' and a 'valores' list), the default behavior when no category is given, and the caveat that 'sectores' has hundreds of entries. It does not explicitly state read-only/harmless nature, but for a pure lookup tool the disclosed behavior is nearly complete.

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 purpose, then organized into Args/Devuelve. Slightly long and the per-category definitions partially restate the earlier list, but every block earns its place by naming example values an agent needs.

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, so the description must explain returns — and it does ('valores' are the exact strings accepted by the sibling search tools). With both params documented, the omission default covered, and the sectores fallback given, nothing needed to call it correctly is 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% and neither param has an enum, yet the description supplies the five allowed categoria values, explains the conditional relationship (tomo only applies to categoria='materias'), and gives example values. This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Lista los valores validos para los filtros del SPIJ'. It also ties the output to its consumers, naming the sibling tools (buscar_normas, buscar_jurisprudencia) whose accepted strings these are, so an agent can place it in the workflow immediately.

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?

Explicitly states what happens when categoria is omitted (returns a summary with counts and examples), that 'materias' requires 'tomo', and offers a concrete alternative when a sector is missing ('escribe parte del nombre en buscar_normas y se resuelve automaticamente'). This is exactly the when-to-use/when-not guidance the dimension asks for.

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