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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: the tool returns a signed URL rather than a file, and returns HTTP 410 once the retention period ('plazo de resguardo') has passed. It omits auth requirements and whether the returned URL itself expires.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary return value, then the sibling-routing caveat, then the failure mode. Every sentence adds information with no filler.

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 exists, yet the description still explains the return (a signed URL) and the 410 failure case, plus the sibling routing. Only the required documento_id parameter remains undocumented, which is a real but narrow gap.

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 has no description in the schema, so the description is the only place it could be explained — yet it never mentions the parameter or its expected format/source. The schema-level constraints (positive integer) are all an agent gets.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Devuelve una URL firmada de descarga del PDF firmado', stating both the action and the artifact returned. It distinguishes itself from the sibling descargar_constancia by explicitly saying the constancia is not inside this PDF.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to descargar_constancia when the constancia is needed rather than this PDF, which is the key ambiguity between the two siblings. It lacks an explicit statement of when to prefer this over obtener_documento or how the signed-PDF state is reached.

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