enaho_unir_modulos

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations. It discloses internal merge behavior (base selection, key type normalization, row loss counting), explains the `pasos_union` output block, and warns about interpreting low match rates. This is substantial behavioral context that the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) do not cover. No contradiction found.

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. It opens with the core purpose, then explains three critical merge behaviors, then guides the user on interpreting output, and finishes with a clear caveat about microdata. Every sentence carries value and there is no redundancy.

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 central role, its 7 parameters, and the presence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what is returned (name, shape, warnings), what is not returned (microdata), how to interpret the `pasos_union` block, and why certain match rates are legitimate. The sibling context is also handled by identifying this as the central merge 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?

Schema description coverage is high (86%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context to parameters like `nivel` (applying the level's keys) and `modulos` (same-year requirement, typical combos), as well as explaining why key normalization matters. It doesn't detail every parameter, but the schema handles those well.

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 begins with a clear verb and resource: 'Une modulos aplicando las llaves del nivel pedido y guarda un parquet' (merges modules applying the keys and saves a parquet). It further distinguishes this tool from siblings by detailing its unique merge logic (choosing the most disaggregated base, normalizing key types, counting lost rows) and positioning it as 'la herramienta central'.

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 establishes when to use this tool (for merging modules) and explicitly states a non-usage: 'NO devuelve microdatos: para analisis libre abre el parquet con pandas.' This provides a clear context and a 'when not to' for microdata access, though it doesn't name specific alternative sibling tools.

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