cgpj_dades_corrupcio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Obté dades') but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authorization requirements, rate limits, or data freshness. The safety profile is implied as non-destructive.

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 concise paragraphs, with the main action front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence adds meaningful context about the data source and scope. No waste.

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 parameterless tool with an output schema, the description provides sufficient context about the data (corruption proceedings, macro-causes, relevant courts). It could mention update frequency or access constraints, but overall it is complete for its simplicity.

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 zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage. By rule, baseline is 3. The description adds context about the data content (macro-causes, National Court) but does not explain parameters as none exist. No contradiction.

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 'Obté' (obtains) and the specific resource: data from the CGPJ's corruption proceedings repository. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cgpj_cercar_sentencies' by focusing specifically on corruption-related macro-cases and superior court proceedings.

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 obtaining corruption proceedings data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to siblings are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the title.

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