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

With no annotations this description carries the full burden, and it discloses the key traits: the returned URL is temporary (1 hour), requires no token, and the operation is gated on COMPLETED status. It omits whether repeated calls issue new URLs, error behavior for non-COMPLETED documents, and permission requirements.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the return value and its expiry, followed by the clarifying contrast with the embedded certificate and the precondition. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers return values (temporary URL, expiry, contents) and the COMPLETED precondition. It leaves minor gaps around failure modes and permission requirements, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 0% and the single parameter documento_id is never described in prose; the description only implies it must reference a COMPLETED document. For a trivial positive-integer ID a baseline 3 is reasonable, but the description adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema's exclusiveMinimum.

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 ('Devuelve una URL temporal ... para bajar la constancia de firma como PDF') and enumerates exactly what the artifact contains (firmantes, fechas, IP, dispositivo, hash SHA-256). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling descargar_documento_firmado by noting the constancia is already embedded in the signed PDF and this tool yields it as a separate file.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('Sólo documentos COMPLETED') and an implicit when-to-use rationale (you want the certificate as a standalone file rather than inside the signed PDF). It does not name the alternative tool explicitly nor state what happens if the document isn't COMPLETED, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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