consulta_ciudadana

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states 'Read-only' and lists excluded actions, providing a strong safety signal. It also mentions that the response includes intention, sources, suggested actions, and limits, which gives a preview of the tool's output. It could add rate limits or specific output structure, but the core read-only behavior is well covered.

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 concise: three sentences cover purpose, exclusions, and output composition. Every sentence contributes necessary context without redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

The description covers purpose, read-only behavior, exclusions, and output highlights, which is good for a simple informational tool. However, it omits critical detail about the 'tono' parameter, and the absence of an output schema makes this omission more impactful. The tool is not fully self-contained for an agent to use correctly without additional inference.

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. While 'consulta' is self-evident from the tool's purpose, the 'tono' parameter (with enum breve/normal/llamada) is entirely unexplained. The description does not clarify what tone/format options mean or how they affect the response, leaving a significant gap.

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 states a specific action: 'Responder una consulta ciudadana usando fuentes oficiales públicas' (respond to a citizen query using official public sources). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on searching or retrieving specific types of information, and it outlines the output components (intention, sources, suggested actions, limits).

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 description explicitly states when not to use the tool: 'no reserva turnos, no envía reclamos/denuncias ni procesa pagos' (does not reserve appointments, send complaints, or process payments). This effectively excludes common alternative uses, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like turnos_info or pagos_info.

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