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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what topics it evaluates (purpose) but does not disclose what the tool does with the input, whether it modifies state, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format is. This is inadequate for an evaluation tool that likely returns a structured assessment.

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 a single moderate-length sentence that starts with the verb 'Evalúa', making the action clear. It concisely lists the evaluation dimensions without redundancy. However, a bit more structure (e.g., separating purpose from scope) could improve readability.

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 the evaluation outcome, return format, or methodology. It only lists topics covered. For an evaluation tool with 3 parameters, the lack of information about what the agent receives back (e.g., a report, score, recommendations) makes it incomplete.

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% and all parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds context about the evaluation topics but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description neither harms nor significantly enhances parameter understanding.

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 evaluates how an agent fits into a larger system, listing specific aspects (catalog of skills, reuse vs specialization, orchestration, automation vs supervision, memories). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like 'evaluar_autonomia' and 'evaluar_necesidad'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for system-level integration evaluation, but does not provide any when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions. Sibling tools exist, but no differentiation criteria are offered.

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