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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the tool's behavior as returning information about the connector's characteristics. It does not mention side effects, destructive actions, or access restrictions, but for a metadata tool this is adequate.

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?

Single sentence starting with the verb 'Informa'. No unnecessary words, perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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?

Tool has no parameters and no output schema; description covers all needed context by specifying what information will be provided (capacities, sources, limitations, disclaimer). Complete for a metadata/introspection tool.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. Description does not need to add parameter info and correctly omits it.

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 that the tool informs about capabilities, data sources, limitations, and disclaimer of the connector. It uses a specific verb ('Informa') and resource ('conector bora-mcp'), distinguishing it from sibling tools which focus on searching/obtaining documents.

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 context (to get an overview of the connector) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives or provide any exclusions. Lacks explicit guidance on when not to use.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, any required permissions, rate limits, or what side effects occur. The description only lists search parameters, leaving the agent uncertain 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 that front-loads the verb and resource, with no unnecessary words. It is efficient and to the point.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers search criteria but omits information about pagination behavior, result format, or limitations. It is adequate for a basic search tool but has gaps.

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?

All 7 parameters have schema descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 searches for notices in the Official Bulletin of Argentina by various criteria (text, date, section, number, year). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'buscar_avisos_judiciales' and 'buscar_licitaciones_publicas' which are more specific.

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 for general notice searches but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings or provide context about when not to use it. No alternatives are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination behavior, authentication needs, or what happens if no results are found. It only labels it as a 'buscador' without further detail.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's specialty and scope. It is concise but could be slightly more detailed 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description does not mention return values or how results are presented. For a search tool with 5 optional parameters, it lacks completeness about pagination, output format, or error conditions.

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 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 it is a specialized search engine for judicial notices of the Second Section, listing specific types like edicts and inhibitions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'buscar_avisos' which is likely generic.

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 use for judicial notices in the Segunda Sección via the word 'especializado', but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or provide exclusions. Context from sibling names adds clarity but is not part of the description.

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

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

With no annotations, the description discloses only that it is a search engine. It fails to mention behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, result format, or any side effects.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no unnecessary words.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should hint at the return format or behavior, but it does not. It is insufficient for a search tool with 4 parameters.

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?

All parameters have full schema descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score is appropriate.

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 it is a specialized search engine for public tenders and contracts in the Third Section of the Official Bulletin, differentiating it from sibling tools that search other sections.

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 use for searching public tenders in the Third Section. It provides clear context but does not explicitly exclude other cases or name alternative tools, though siblings are separate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'buscador especializado' without disclosing any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, pagination details, or whether it is read-only. The agent has no insight beyond the name and parameter schema.

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, well-structured sentence of 20 words that front-loads the purpose. Every word is informative, 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 that there is no output schema and the tool has 4 parameters, the description does not explain return values, sorting, or pagination behavior. It is minimally complete for a search tool but leaves significant gaps for agent reasoning.

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 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'criterio' is already described as name, owner, or class). The description does not elaborate on format or usage hints.

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 is a specialized search engine for the Fourth Section (Trademarks and Patents), including commercial trademarks, invention patents, industrial models, and designs. The name 'buscar_marcas_patentes' directly matches, and it is distinct from sibling tools that search other sections.

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 for trademark/patent searches but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives among many sibling search tools. It does not set boundaries, leaving the agent to infer.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions 'sin pasos intermedios' (no intermediate steps), indicating directness, but does not disclose other behaviors like pagination, error handling, or rate limits. With 100% schema coverage, the parameter descriptions partially compensate.

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 main purpose and includes a value-add ('sin pasos intermedios'). No unnecessary words.

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 complexity (9 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is brief and relies heavily on schema for parameter understanding. It covers the core functionality but lacks contextual details about result format, pagination, or limitations.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description adds value by mentioning search by number and/or year but does not elaborate on other parameters like organismo, materia, or fecha. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 searches directly in the Primera Sección for norms by number and/or year, listing examples like decrees, resolutions, laws. It distinguishes from siblings like 'buscar_avisos' which focus on notices, but could be more explicit about the exact database scope.

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 for searching norms in the first section but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given sibling tools, the context suggests separate use cases, but no direct guidance is provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, whether authentication is required, pagination behavior beyond the 'pagina' parameter, or any rate limits. The description only states the search function without behavioral context.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, including specific company types and source section. No redundant or extraneous text.

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 specialized search tool with no output schema or annotations, the description provides the core purpose but lacks details on result format, pagination behavior, or error handling. It is minimally complete for a simple query tool but could be enhanced.

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 covers all three parameters with clear descriptions (date format examples, default page). The description adds no additional semantics to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.

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 it searches for new commercial companies (S.A., S.R.L., S.A.S.) in the Second Section of the Official Gazette, distinguishing it from sibling tools like buscar_avisos (general ads) or buscar_sociedades_por_tipo (societies by type). The verb 'buscar' and resource 'nuevas sociedades' are explicit.

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 for searching new company formations in a specific section but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like buscar_sociedades_por_tipo or buscar_avisos. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions filters but fails to disclose crucial behaviors such as pagination, response format, result ordering, or whether all parameters are optional. The description is too brief for a search tool with six parameters.

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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the specialized nature. It wastes no words, but could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 has six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide enough context for an agent to use it correctly. It omits details about required vs optional parameters, pagination, date format, and what the tool returns.

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 100%, so the input schema already explains all parameters well. The description adds value by naming the two filter dimensions (tipo de acto, tipo societario), but it only enumerates a subset of the actual enum values, which could mislead the agent about available options. Thus, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it is a search engine specialized in the Second Section (Companies) with filters by type of corporate act and type of society, which aligns with the tool name. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'buscar_nuevas_sociedades' and lists only a subset of the enum values present in the schema.

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, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It only describes what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name and context signals.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool retrieves text and metadata, indicating a read operation. However, it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or error handling.

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?

A single, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'obtiene' and specifies the core function. No unnecessary words.

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?

The tool is simple with 3 required parameters and no output schema. The description covers the basic input-output expectation. However, it could mention what 'metadatos' includes or handling of missing notices.

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 100% with each parameter described. The description adds that these parameters are used to specify the notice, but does not provide additional insight beyond the schema.

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 it retrieves the full text verbatim and metadata of a specific notice/law, using section, ID, and date. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'buscar_avisos' (search) and 'obtener_enlace_pdf' (PDF link only).

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 for retrieving a specific notice by its identifiers, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, such as using 'obtener_enlace_pdf' for PDF links.

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

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

No hay anotaciones, por lo que la descripción debe cubrir el comportamiento. Afirma que es de solo lectura (obtener enlace), pero no detalla efectos secundarios, requisitos de autenticación o manejo de errores. Es adecuada pero no exhaustiva.

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?

La descripción es una sola oración concisa sin información redundante. Cada palabra aporta valor, logrando comunicar el propósito sin extenderse.

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?

La herramienta no tiene esquema de salida, por lo que la descripción debería aclarar que devuelve una URL, pero no lo hace explícitamente. Tampoco menciona casos de error o relaciones con otras herramientas. Es completa para una función simple, pero podría mejorarse con detalles sobre el formato de retorno.

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?

El esquema cubre el 100% de los parámetros con descripciones claras (sección, ID, fecha). La descripción de la herramienta no añade semántica adicional, pero el esquema ya es suficiente, por lo que se asigna la puntuación base de 3.

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?

La descripción indica claramente que el herramienta obtiene un enlace de descarga directa de un PDF firmado de un aviso. El verbo 'obtiene' y el recurso 'enlace ... PDF' definen la acción de forma específica, diferenciándolo de herramientas hermanas como 'obtener_detalle_aviso'.

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?

No se proporciona orientación sobre cuándo usar esta herramienta en lugar de las alternativas, ni se mencionan requisitos previos o contexto de uso. La descripción solo declara la función, sin indicar exclusiones.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the full burden. It clearly states the operation is read-only and returns highlights and direct links for today's 4 sections. No side effects or requirements are mentioned, but the simplicity of a parameterless tool makes this sufficient.

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?

Single sentence, concise and front-loaded. Every word adds value; no 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?

For a simple parameterless tool, the description gives enough context to decide to use it for today's overview. No output schema exists, but the return format (highlights and links) is implied. Complete enough given the domain and sibling tools.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but none are needed.

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 obtains highlights and direct PDF links for each of the 4 sections of today's Official Gazette, using a specific verb ('obtiene') and resource ('portada'). It distinguishes from siblings like obtener_enlace_pdf (single PDF link) and obtener_sumario_del_dia (summary content).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies it's for a daily overview, but does not state when not to use it (e.g., for specific sections or other dates). The zero-parameter nature makes usage straightforward, but guidelines are missing.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states a read operation ('obtiene'), which is clear. However, it does not disclose any behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens with invalid dates beyond the schema's default 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 sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no superfluous 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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately conveys what it returns (complete unified summary grouped by rubros). It could specify the output format (e.g., JSON, HTML), but the domain context implies a structured text. Overall, it is fairly complete for its purpose.

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 coverage is 100% with the parameter 'fecha' described in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning or context about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high 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 clearly states the tool 'gets the complete and unified summary of the four sections of the Official Gazette for a given day, grouped by headings.' It distinguishes from siblings like obtener_sumario_seccion (likely one section) and buscar_avisos (search specific notices).

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 needing a full day's summary, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like search tools. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states that results are ordered by category. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, if authentication is needed, rate limits, pagination, or what happens when no results are found. This is insufficient for a tool with no behavioral hints.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loads the action and result. Every part is relevant, but it could be slightly more structured with separate details on ordering or usage.

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 has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on return structure, edge cases, or prerequisites. For a simple tool, it suffices but leaves gaps.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds minor value by noting ordering by 'rubro/tema', which is not in the schema. It does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Obtiene' (Gets) and resource 'sumario de avisos publicados en una sección específica para una fecha dada' and mentions ordering 'ordenados por rubro/tema'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'obtener_sumario_del_dia', though the name and parameter suggest section-specificity.

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 needing a summary of notices for a specific section and date, including ordering. It provides no guidance on when not to use this tool, nor does it mention alternative tools like 'obtener_sumario_del_dia' for a full day summary.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (tracking changes over time) but omits details like error handling, network requirements, or output format. This is adequate but leaves room for ambiguity.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately understandable.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core purpose but does not explain the return structure or edge cases. It is adequate for basic use but lacks completeness for an AI agent to fully understand output behavior.

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 already fully describes each parameter (100% coverage). The tool description adds example values and explains the date range behavior (e.g., default to today), which provides marginal extra value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'rastrea' and clearly defines the resource 'norma en el BORA' with a precise goal: to detect modifications, regulations, suspensions, or derogations. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'buscar_norma_primera_seccion' by emphasizing chronological tracking.

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 for tracking regulatory changes but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is not appropriate.

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