tramites_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, performs external searches, or returns specific types of information. This lack of detail leaves significant ambiguity about the tool's behavior.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and subject, earning its place, though it could be expanded with useful details without becoming verbose.

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 simplest tool with one optional parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description only provides a high-level purpose. It lacks info on input format, expected outputs, or how it differs from siblings, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the 'consulta' parameter, but it only mentions the general topic. It does not specify what the parameter should contain (e.g., a question, a keyword, or a procedure name), leaving the user to infer it from the tool name.

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 states the tool's purpose with a verb ('Orientar' - to guide) and a resource ('trámites municipales generales y buscadores oficiales'). This distinguishes it from specific sibling tools like buscar_fuentes or detalle_fuente, but the verb 'orientar' is somewhat vague about the concrete action performed.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not name any siblings, mention exclusions, or provide context for selecting it over more specialized tools like buscar_web_oficial or reclamos_info.

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