reclamos_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states a key limitation ('No envía el reclamo') which is a behavioral trait not evident from the tool name. It also reveals a likely behavioral pattern: the tool will direct users to channels and suggest data preparation. However, it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., links, instructions) or how it processes the 'tema' parameter, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: the first defines the main action and secondary benefit, the second clarifies a critical limitation. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, and there is no redundant or filler content. Perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential context: what it does, what it does not do, and what it suggests. It tells the user the tool is a referral/guidance tool, not a submission tool. However, it omits any detail about the output format or examples, which could be useful but is not strictly necessary for a simple text-based tool. Overall, sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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 input schema has a single optional parameter 'tema' with no description (0% schema description coverage). The tool's description does not explicitly explain what 'tema' should contain (e.g., the complaint topic, keywords). The phrase 'sugerir qué datos preparar' hints at the general function but does not map to the parameter. Since the schema leaves the parameter undefined and the description fails to compensate, parameter semantics are weak.

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 verb+resource: 'Derivar reclamos/denuncias a canales oficiales' (refer complaints/reports to official channels) and adds a clear secondary function ('sugerir qué datos preparar'). It also clarifies a critical exclusion with 'No envía el reclamo,' distinguishing it from any tool that might submit complaints. The name and description clearly separate it from sibling tools focused on payments, appointments, procedures, etc.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when dealing with complaints/reports that need to be directed to official channels and when suggesting data to prepare. It also implicitly warns the user not to expect actual submission via 'No envía el reclamo.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or mention 'when not to use' beyond the limitation, so it lacks explicit alternative guidance.

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