cgpj_estadistiques_judicials

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions querying and listing databases, with no details on safety (read-only/mutative), authentication needs, rate limits, or return behavior. The tool's side effects and constraints are unclear.

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?

Two sentences, each carrying purpose. No filler, but could be restructured for clarity (e.g., separating query vs listing). Efficient but leaves ambiguity.

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?

With 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is too brief. It fails to explain what the output contains (whether it's a list of databases or statistical data), how the parameters affect results, or any usage context. Incomplete for a data-retrieval 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (all parameters described in schema). The description adds 'Es pot filtrar per tema' which mirrors the schema description for 'tema', but misses the other parameters (any, territori). It does not provide additional meaning 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 states it consults judicial statistics and lists databases, which is ambiguous: does it return actual statistics or just a list of available databases? The parameters (year, theme, territory) suggest querying data, but the description emphasizes listing databases. This vagueness reduces clarity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like cgpj_cercar_sentencies or cgpj_dades_corrupcio. Does not specify prerequisites, limitations, or alternatives. The description implies it's for statistics, but doesn't contrast with similar tools.

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