Descargar microdatos de una encuesta ANDA

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: it accepts the research-use terms and returns links (not the data) to multi-MB ZIPs, which tells the agent about payload size and that retrieval is a pointer rather than a content dump.

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?

Two tight sentences with the outcome front-loaded and the prerequisite second; there is no filler and every clause carries information.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value details are not the description's burden, yet it usefully characterizes the return as links to multi-MB ZIPs. Combined with annotations and full schema coverage, this is nearly complete for a simple downloader, missing only explicit exclusion guidance.

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 100% with only two parameters, so the schema already documents idno (source field) and the format enum. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the resource (an ANDA survey's microdata files) and the outcome (direct links), which an agent can distinguish from the sibling get_anda_survey_info that it names as a prerequisite. The phrasing is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource, but the action is unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells the agent to 'Check get_anda_survey_info first', establishing a sequencing rule against a named sibling, and notes the research-use terms acceptance. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it, so it is clear context without full exclusion guidance.

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