enaho_informe

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that the server runs the estimations with the full sample design, that numbers don't pass through the agent's context, that each table gets automatic footnotes including CV>15% warnings, and that partial failures are handled gracefully. These are valuable behavioral traits not conveyed by readOnlyHint/idempotentHint.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential mechanics, an illustrative example, and error handling. Each sentence earns its place; there is no fluff. The length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity (multiple section types), the description covers the main workflow, input specs, failure handling, and accuracy rationale. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for all 6 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example of an estimation section, showing fields like 'dataset', 'variable', 'estadistico', 'valor', 'por', 'peso_adicional', which clarifies the JSON structure beyond the schema's general list. It also explains the narrative concept, providing extra meaning.

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 'Redacta un informe ejecutando las estimaciones' (writes a report by running estimations), specifying both the action (redacta) and the resource (informe). It contrasts with copying numbers and distinguishes from sibling tools like enaho_estimar by emphasizing it is a report-generation tool that takes narrative and calculation specs.

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: you pass a narrative ('NARRATIVA') and a specification of what to calculate, and the server runs the estimations. It explains the input structure and failure behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it (e.g., for single estimations, use enaho_estimar), so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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