enaho_documentacion_convertir

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds behavioral context by revealing that it also converts already-textual content and specifically highlights the value of Stata .do files. It does not contradict annotations, and the performance expectations add useful transparency beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds value—context, usage guidance, timing, and follow-up—but the length is at the upper bound of conciseness. The inclusion of 'por que' material (the Stata .do part) is valuable, so the length is earned.

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 tool's complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains the tool's purpose, its valuable content, when to narrow with `documentos`, and the recommended next step. It doesn't mention prerequistes like whether PDFs must be downloaded first, but this is a minor gap given sibling tools handle downloading.

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 coverage is 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning by giving concrete examples for the `documentos` parameter (`['diccionario']`, `['sumaria', 'ficha']`) and explaining the consequence of no filter ('se convierte la ola entera'). It also reinforces the `encuesta` scope by mentioning the ENAHO, but doesn't elaborate on `anio`, which is slightly lacking.

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 starts with 'Pasa a Markdown los PDF de documentacion del INEI para poder buscarlos' which clearly states the verb (convert to Markdown) and resource (INEI documentation PDFs). It differentiates from siblings like enaho_documentacion_buscar (search) and enaho_descargar_documentacion (download) by explicitly being the conversion step before searching.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'ACOTA SIEMPRE con `documentos` salvo que el usuario pida la ola entera' and provides timing expectations (1 minute for dictionary, several for all 27 documents). It also recommends the alternative tool after conversion: 'usa enaho_documentacion_buscar en vez de leer los archivos', making the workflow clear.

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