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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes the tool as a verification step ('verifica') but does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor does it mention any side effects, prerequisites, or error handling. The behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, auth requirements) are not disclosed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence is informative and necessary, with no redundant language or filler.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose, input, and output but lacks detail on the output structure ('brief de evaluación estructurado'). Additionally, the 'language' parameter is omitted from the description. Without an output schema, the description should better specify what the structured brief contains.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds meaning for 'agent_definition' (calls it 'la definición del agente') and implies an output brief, but does not mention the 'language' parameter or its enum values. Overall, the description provides moderate added value beyond the schema.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: verifying that the boundary between recommendation and execution is defined in code (status + gates), not discovered in production. It lists concrete items (what executes directly, pending approval, rejected) and states the input (agent definition) and output (structured evaluation brief). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'revisar_rol_y_frontera' which likely focus on role boundaries.

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 implies usage during design time ('no descubierta en producción') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'revisar_rol_y_frontera' or 'auditar_contexto'. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and the context signals show many sibling tools with overlapping themes.

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