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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only verification action ('Verifica', 'devuelve un brief'), which is sufficient for a non-destructive tool. No contradictions.

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?

Single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and defines input/output. No redundant words or tangential content.

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?

The description states it returns a 'brief de evaluación estructurado' but does not detail the structure or evaluation criteria. For a complex verification tool without an output schema, this is a notable gap.

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 the description adds no new semantics beyond the schema. It restates 'Recibe la definición del agente' but does not clarify format or provide usage examples.

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 uses specific verbs ('Verifica', 'Recibe', 'devuelve') and clearly states the resource: agent role clarity and boundary. It distinguishes from siblings like 'revisar_frontera_ejecucion' by focusing on role and identity layer.

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 when verifying role clarity and boundaries (e.g., during agent design), but provides no explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like 'auditar_contexto' or 'revisar_frontera_ejecucion'.

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