enaho_descargar

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the idempotent cache behavior (skipping already-downloaded complete modules), ZIP integrity verification with automatic redownload of truncated files, and a per-call download limit that returns a divide-the-request error. This goes well beyond the idempotentHint and readOnlyHint annotations, giving the agent a clear model of the tool's side effects and error handling.

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?

The description is remarkably concise: three short paragraphs that front-load the core purpose and return type, then add behavioral details without repetition. Every sentence earns its place, covering idempotency, ZIP verification, and rate limits in a compact way.

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?

Given the 6 parameters, comprehensive schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers all critical non-schema information: return type (paths), idempotent behavior, ZIP verification, and request limits. The output schema handles return values, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description is complete for a well-documented download tool.

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?

The input schema already provides comprehensive descriptions for all 6 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context about the download limit per call, which directly affects how many anios and cortes can be requested, and explains the fallback between formats (STATA→SPSS→CSV) which is referenced in the formato parameter. This adds value beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Descarga modulos al cache local.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating 'NO devuelve microdatos, devuelve rutas,' making it clear this is a download-to-cache tool, not a data retrieval tool.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (downloading modules to cache) and what to expect (returns paths, not microdata). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the distinction from data-access tools implies when to use it. The idempotent cache behavior and download limit also help the user understand practical usage constraints.

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