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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight. It discloses that the tool is a hard gate (strict compliance required before merge, not after), returns a point-by-point verdict, and is evaluative rather than destructive. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the main action, the second adds critical timing and outcome. Efficient and well-structured.

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 conveys the key points: action, timing, and return type (point-by-point verdict). It lacks details on the verdict format (e.g., pass/fail per point) but is largely complete for a tool with simple parameters and clear purpose.

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% (2 parameters fully described). The description does not add semantic meaning beyond the schema—'agent_definition' is mentioned but schema already explains it. 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?

The description clearly states the tool runs a 19-point checklist against an agent definition, explicitly calling it the 'gate final' before merging, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'validar_veredicto' and 'construir_agente'.

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 specifies this is the final step before merge, giving clear timing context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the role as final gate is enough for an agent to understand its placement.

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