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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it closes the cycle with a contract and returns structured content with counts and a normalized verdict (apto only if faltas === 0). However, it does not clarify if the tool has side effects (e.g., writing state) beyond the cycle closure, nor does it mention authentication or rate limits. The disclosure is adequate but lacks depth.

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 three sentences long, covering purpose, input, output, and use case without any fluff. Each sentence serves a distinct and necessary function, making it highly efficient.

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 (one parameter with 19 sub-items) and the presence of an output schema, the description explains the input requirements, the output structure (counts and normalized verdict), and the verdict condition. It does not cover error handling or edge cases, but for a CI gate tool, the current level is sufficient. Minor gap prevents a perfect score.

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%, with the 'puntos' parameter described in the schema as 'Los 19 puntos del checklist con su estado evaluado.' The description repeats that the points must be 19 with states (ok|parcial|falta), adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, the description adds minimal value over 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 name, title, and description clearly state this tool validates the checklist verdict for CI. It specifies it closes the checklist cycle, takes 19 points with states, and returns structured validation output. It distinguishes itself from siblings like checklist_nacimiento by being for programmatic consumption and gates.

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 indicates this tool should be used after checklist_nacimiento to close the cycle, and explicitly states it's intended for CI/gates where text parsing is not needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the context of sibling tools makes the use case clear.

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