Resumen y calidad de un caso

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds computation semantics beyond that: the priority score is 'explicable' and derived from confidence, source reliability, connections and novelty, which tells the agent how to interpret results. It stops short of stating cost, entity limits or response size.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that enumerates the output sections without filler. The nested parenthetical listing score components is dense but each clause maps to a real output section rather than padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so by naming the four result blocks (counts, priority entities with score dimensions, isolated entities, quality indices). Combined with fully documented parameters and full annotation coverage, an agent has what it needs to call it and interpret the result.

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 100%, so case_id, top and response_format are already documented in the schema, including the enum and defaults. The description adds nothing about parameters (e.g. that 'top' caps the priority-entity list), so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Resume') plus the resource ('un caso') and then enumerates exactly what the summary contains: counts by type, priority entities, isolated entities and quality indices. An agent can distinguish it from osint_get_timeline or osint_export_case by the content listed, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 usage context (a summarising/overview read for one case) is implied by 'Resume un caso', but there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over osint_list_cases, osint_get_entity, osint_get_timeline or osint_suggest_next_steps, and no prerequisites such as the case needing to exist.

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