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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose meaningful semantics: it counts verdicts rather than runs, restricts to PUBLISHED verdicts, and implies a point-in-time snapshot via "hoy: 0". What it omits is significant — there is no statement of how the file is determined given the tool takes no parameters, no freshness or timestamp information, and no confirmation that the call is a pure read.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and the returned counts, followed by the two clarifying caveats. The hardcoded "(hoy: 0)" is the weakest element: it embeds a value that will go stale and belongs in a response rather than a definition.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does explain the three counts an agent will receive, which is the right thing to document. However, it never resolves the central ambiguity of "de este archivo" when no file parameter exists, leaving the agent unsure what determines the scope of the measurement.

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 declares zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not invent or misdescribe any inputs.

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 names a specific resource (the Rosetta Quantum Evidence Ledger for this file) and enumerates the exact quantities returned: sealed runs, verdicts, and published verdicts claiming a quantum win. It also disambiguates its own scope against a plausible misreading ("no describe el estado del campo"), so an agent can tell it is a metrics/status read rather than a content read. It falls short of 5 because it never contrastively names a sibling such as ver_archivo.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this to check whether any quantum method has beaten the classical champion. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative for the related cases (viewing the ledger entries themselves vs. this summary). The caveat "El ledger publica lo que Rosetta midió; no describe el estado del campo" functions as light when-not guidance, which keeps it above a 2.

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