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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation is public, requires no authentication key, has no cost, and confirms whether a verification existed along with the time and result. This adds meaningful behavioral and outcome context beyond the bare tool name.

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 concise sentences front-load the core action and scope, then add the result semantics and access conditions. Every clause earns its place with no redundant or filler content.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, access requirements, cost, and the nature of the outcome. It does not specify exact return fields or error behavior, but the tool is simple enough that the description is largely sufficient.

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 0%, and the description only refers to the folio parameter as 'por su folio', which largely restates the property name. It does not explain what a folio is, its format, where to find it, or any examples. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema-level parameter documentation.

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 (Valida), the resource (una constancia), and the method (por su folio), and distinguishes this from other validation tools by specifying the certificate type and the public nature. It also explains what the validation confirms: the existence, time, and result of the verification.

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 clear usage context by noting that no key is required and there is no cost, which helps an agent decide when this public validation tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, such as when needing to emit a constancia instead.

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