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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description goes beyond them by disclosing what the response carries: the set of possible states, the dates of the 15th and 30th, and links to the evidence and dossier. This is useful output-content disclosure not present in structured fields.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Estado de un expediente por su token') before the state enumeration and return details. Efficient, though the semicolon-chained clauses make it slightly packed.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one param and no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the possible states and the returned artifacts. The mention of 'fechas del día 15 y 30' is somewhat ambiguous, but overall it supplies enough for correct invocation.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'token'. The description only restates 'por su token' and adds the 'expediente' context, not format or syntax. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieve the status ('Estado') of an expediente identified by its token. It also enumerates the possible states (borrador, pagado, enviado, entregado, intento documentado), which pins down the domain. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like listar_casos, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 the tool is looked up by token but never states when to use it versus alternatives such as listar_casos or enviar_burofax, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The token-based framing hints at usage, but there is no explicit guidance.

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