enaho_panel_inspeccionar

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds behavioral context by stating it reports actual detected columns without assuming, and lists the categories of outputs (waves, suffixed variables, candidate keys, factor-like columns). No contradictions with annotations.

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 and then provides crucial background (panel vs annual) and a usage directive. Each sentence adds value; however, the middle paragraph is slightly verbose and could be tightened while preserving the warning.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose, the panel-specific context, and what outputs to expect (columns, keys, factors). It stops short of detailing error behaviors, but for an inspection tool with good schema/sibling context, it is complete.

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 50%; 'modulo' has a description and default, 'anio' does not. The description does not elaborate on parameter semantics, but the parameter names and schema constraints make them reasonably clear. It neither adds nor detracts, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool inspects a panel module to reveal its actual columns ('Mira que hay de verdad...'), and distinguishes it from annual ENAHO and from panel-building tools by specifying it reports waves, suffixed variables, keys, and factors. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like enaho_describir_modulo and enaho_panel_armar.

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 provides explicit timing ('Usala antes de armar nada'), warns against using annual factor07 on panel data, and sets context that panel data is wide-format with suffixed variables. The guidance implies not to use annual ENAHO tools interchangeably and to use this as a precursor to enaho_panel_armar, making when-to-use clear.

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