consulta_ciudadana

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 the tool is read-only, lists actions it does not perform, and describes the output components (intention, sources, suggested actions, limits). This provides a comprehensive behavioral model beyond the schema, making it highly transparent.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately followed by read-only constraints and output content. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 and lack of output schema/annotations, the description is fairly complete: it covers purpose, safety, exclusions, and output structure. However, it omits any guidance on parameter usage and does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over sibling tools, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate by explaining either parameter ('consulta' or 'tono'). There is no guidance on what should be in the query, how the tone affects the response, or any constraints. The description adds no semantic value beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 specific verb ('Responder') and resource ('consulta ciudadana'), and distinguishes it from siblings by explicitly listing what it does not do (no turnos, reclamos, pagos) and what it includes (intención, fuentes, acciones sugeridas, límites). This makes the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: for general citizen queries using official public sources. It also provides explicit exclusions ('no reserva turnos, no envía reclamos/denuncias ni procesa pagos') indicating when not to use it. However, it does not name specific alternative tools, so it falls short of the full 5-point requirement for alternatives.

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