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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the tool's function but fails to disclose behavioral traits like whether it modifies data, errors on invalid input, or rate limits. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 sentences cover purpose, inputs, and output. Front-loaded with key action. No waste, but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points).

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?

No output schema or annotations; description mentions returns 'brief de evaluación estructurado' but lacks detail on structure. For a tool with 2 params and no nested objects, completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 schema already documents both parameters. Description adds minor value (e.g., 'Cuanto más completa, mejor la evaluación') but doesn't provide critical format or syntax details beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verifies outputs are actionable, with specific criteria (strict schema, readable summary, gate exposure). Distinguishes from siblings like 'evaluar_sistema' by focusing on output actionability rather than system-level evaluation.

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?

Description implies usage for checking output actionability but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or how it differs from similar tools. No alternatives mentioned.

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