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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the operation is cryptographic verification and lists the specific checks performed plus that authentication is required ('equivalente autenticado'), but says nothing about the result format, cost, or permissions beyond the auth hint.

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 tightly packed sentences: the action and its target come first, the enumerated checks follow, and the public-validator comparison closes it. Every clause earns its place with zero padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description bears some responsibility for indicating results, and it does so by enumerating the verification aspects (integrity, chain, timestamp, test status). It stops short of describing the shape of the verdict or error cases, which leaves a small gap for a validation tool whose output is the whole point.

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 description coverage is 100%: the single parameter pdf_base64 is fully documented with encoding and a 15 MB limit in the schema. The description adds only that the PDF may originate from Identik or an Argentine digital signature, which is context rather than parameter syntax, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Verifica criptográficamente') and resource ('las firmas de un PDF') and enumerates exactly what is checked: integridad, cadena, sello de tiempo RFC-3161, and test-document status. No sibling tool performs validation, so the agent can clearly distinguish it from the document-management siblings without opening a schema.

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 names an alternative ('el validador público /validar') and frames this as its authenticated equivalent, which hints at when to prefer it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance within the workflow (e.g., after descargar_documento_firmado) and no when-not conditions against the sibling tools.

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