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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (a mutation), and the description adds that it has no extra cost and returns a folio that is freely validatable. It doesn't detail any side effects or idempotency, but the annotations cover the basic mutability and non-idempotency, so the description adds some context without contradiction.

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 concise (2 sentences) and front-loads the core purpose and the key parameter. It avoids repetition of the schema and provides essential information efficiently.

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 (1 param, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and points to the validation sibling. However, it could benefit from clarifying what constitutes a 'verification you already did' and any prerequisites, but it is generally adequate.

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 schema has 0% coverage, as the parameter verification_id is just a string with no description. The description mentions it is the verification_id of a previously performed verification, but does not explain format, example, or how to obtain it, leaving the agent with limited guidance for a critical parameter.

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 emits a constancia (verifiable receipt) for a previously performed verification, identified by verification_id. It distinguishes itself from validar_constancia by noting it produces a folio that can be validated by that sibling tool.

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 the tool is used after a verification has been completed, and references validar_constancia as the alternative for validating the folio. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough.

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