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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the return is a temporary no-token URL valid for 1 hour, what the PDF contains, and that only COMPLETED documents are eligible. It omits auth/permission requirements and what happens on an incomplete document, but the temporal and scoping behaviors are unusually well specified.

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?

Front-loads the key fact (a temporary download URL) and packs expiry, content, and the archival caveat into three dense sentences with little waste. It is slightly packed rather than perfectly spare, but every clause serves the caller.

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 output schema, the description takes responsibility for return semantics, telling the agent it receives a 1-hour URL rather than file bytes, plus the artifact's contents. Together with the COMPLETED precondition, an agent has everything needed to call and use this tool correctly.

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 0% and the single parameter (documento_id) is undocumented in both schema and description. The description partially compensates by constraining the eligible document to COMPLETED status, but adds no detail on the identifier's meaning or format, so it only marginally exceeds the baseline.

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 (devuelve/descargar) and resource (constancia de firma), and describes exactly what the returned PDF contains (firmantes, fechas, IP, dispositivo, sellos de tiempo, hash SHA-256). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling descargar_documento_firmado, which returns the signed PDF itself.

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 hard precondition ('Sólo documentos COMPLETED') and explains the archival workflow (la constancia NO va dentro del PDF firmado: archivala junto con el documento), which tells the agent when this output matters. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives (e.g., descargar_documento_firmado) to route between them, so it falls short of a 5.

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