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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so credit here goes to the added context: accepted input shapes and the three things returned (what it is, when signed, public page). It stops short of saying what happens on a non-matching or invalid code, which matters for a verification tool.

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, no filler: the first defines the operation and its input tolerance, the second defines the return. Front-loaded with the verb and resource, with detail trailing behind it.

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 one parameter, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies exactly what the structured fields cannot: the accepted input variants and the shape of the result. Failure behavior (unknown code, ambiguous prefix) is the only meaningful omission.

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% and the schema already names the four accepted forms (code, hash, prefix ≥10, /v/ URL), which the description largely restates. The "10 o más caracteres" precision is helpful but duplicates rather than extends the schema text, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Verifica un código de FirmaRED") and enumerates what the code can attest to (firma, acta, nota de Hoy, pronóstico, cierre). An agent can distinguish this read/verify path from the signing sibling `sellar` without opening either 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 verify-vs-sign boundary is implied by the verb and the accepted inputs, but there is no explicit "use this when… / not when…" guidance or named alternative among `sellar`, `fetch` or `search`. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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