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

No annotations provided, so description entirely responsible for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'audits' and 'returns a brief' but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only (non-destructive) or specify any write operations. The lack of clarity on side effects reduces transparency.

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?

Description is a single coherent paragraph, front-loaded with the core purpose, and covers most aspects without extraneous detail. Slightly verbose but still concise for the scope.

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 no output schema, the description should explain return structure. It only says 'brief de evaluación estructurado', which is vague. Complex audit tool with multiple axes (3 layers, governance, etc.) would benefit from listing expected output sections. Adequate but not complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description briefly mentions 'agent_definition' as the input but adds no extra detail beyond the schema (e.g., no example values, format hints, or constraints). The 'language' parameter is also absent from description.

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?

Description clearly states the tool audits agent context across specific dimensions (3 layers, relevance, integration, etc.) with a clear verb ('audita') and resource ('contexto del agente'). However, it does not distinguish from sibling audit tools like 'evaluar_sistema' or 'revisar_rol_y_frontera', which may overlap in purpose.

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. Does not specify prerequisites, expected input format beyond 'definición completa', or when not to use it. The context of the sibling tools list (e.g., 'evaluar_autonomia', 'recomendar_flujo') is not leveraged to set boundaries.

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