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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does useful work: it discloses that the return is a signed URL rather than the file bytes, notes the constancia is embedded, and specifies the 410 response after the retention period (plazo de resguardo). It omits permission/auth requirements and behavior for unsigned or missing documents.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the failure mode appended; no filler. Slightly terse relative to what the tool could document.

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 exist, so the description must stand alone. It adequately covers the return type and one error case for a simple one-parameter tool, but lacks usage routing, identifier sourcing, and permission/edge-case behavior.

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?

Only one parameter, documento_id, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description never mentions the identifier or how/where to obtain it, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 action and resource: it returns a signed download URL for the signed PDF, with the constancia embedded at the end. This implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like descargar_constancia (proof only) and obtener_documento, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or routing to alternatives. It implies the document must exist and be signed, but leaves the agent to infer when this tool should be chosen over descargar_constancia or obtener_documento.

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