reclamos_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states a key non-behavior: 'No envía el reclamo' (does not send the complaint), which clarifies that the tool only provides guidance, not actual submission. This is valuable beyond what the name suggests, though it omits other potential details like rate limits or authentication.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by a critical caveat. Every word earns its place with no redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the main purpose and outcome (official channels and data suggestions). However, it lacks specifics on how results are presented (e.g., links, formatting) and does not elaborate on the parameter, making it minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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. The only parameter 'tema' is not explicitly explained beyond the tool's overall purpose. The phrase 'sugerir qué datos preparar' hints at the output but does not clarify what the 'tema' input should contain or its format, leaving the parameter semantically under-defined.

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: to redirect complaints/reports to official channels and suggest what data to prepare. The verb 'Derivar' is specific and distinguishes this tool from siblings like pagos_info or turnos_info, as it deals specifically with reclamos/denuncias.

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 implies usage: when a user wants to file a complaint, this tool will help by providing official channels and data preparation tips. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives (e.g., consulta_ciudadana) or mention any exclusions, leaving the usage context somewhat implicit.

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