verificar_vigencia

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return payload (status and verification date) but says nothing about mutation guarantees, error behavior, permissions, or what happens when an id is not found. For a verification-style tool this is only partially transparent.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word contributes to the core message. It is appropriately minimal for a simple tool, even though it could convey more useful content.

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?

Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide enough information for correct invocation. It omits id semantics, language behavior, and failure handling, and never explicitly connects the tool to the apparent legal-norm domain suggested by the sibling names.

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 0%, and the description does not explain what 'id' identifies or how 'language' affects the result. Neither 'fuente' nor the return statement clarifies parameter meaning or expected formats. The agent is left with only the property names and schema constraints.

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 uses a specific return verb ('Devuelve') and identifies the resource ('estado y fecha de verificación de una fuente'), making the core function clear. It is not a tautology of the name and its focus on status/verification date distinguishes it from siblings like buscar_normativa or auditar_repositorio, though 'fuente' is somewhat vague.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as consultar_obligacion or buscar_normativa. There are no stated conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites. An agent would need to infer usage from the tool name and sibling context, which the description itself does not support.

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