pagos_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 discloses limitations (not personal debt, not processing payments), which is positive transparency, but it does not describe what the tool actually returns or how it operates. The term 'orientar' suggests informational output, but no specifics are given.

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 that front-loads the purpose and includes clear boundaries. Every part is useful and there is no redundant information.

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 simple structure (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description should still compensate for the complete lack of parameter information. It does not, leaving the agent with an uninterpretable 'consulta' parameter. The description is too minimal to fully support invocation.

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 one parameter 'consulta' with no description and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not explain what this parameter should contain, such as whether it expects a free-text question or a specific code. This is a significant gap given the low schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Orientar sobre pagos/tasas/tributos' (guide on payments/fees/taxes), using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself by stating limits: 'no consulta deuda personal ni procesa pagos' (does not consult personal debt nor process payments), which differentiates from potential sibling tools. However, 'orientar' is a slightly vague verb compared to more explicit actions like 'list' or 'create'.

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 implicit usage boundaries by stating what the tool does NOT do (personal debt consultation, payment processing). This helps an agent decide when not to use it, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or name alternative tools. The context signals show sibling tools like 'consulta_ciudadana' and 'turnos_info', but no explicit comparison is made.

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