Ver metadata 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 the informational content of the result (microdata availability, access terms), but since an output schema exists this overlaps with structured data, and it discloses nothing about auth, rate limits, or edge cases.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the operation and purpose, with zero filler. It could arguably trim the parenthetical, but it is well-sized for the tool's simplicity.

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, annotations covering safety, and full schema description coverage, the description only needs to convey purpose and content, which it does. Minor gaps in workflow guidance keep it from a 5.

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%, so both the required 'idno' and the 'format' enum are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates that idno comes from search_anda, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields; 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Full metadata for one ANDA survey') and enumerates the content: scope, variables, microdata availability and access terms. It is clearly distinguishable from search_anda by tying the idno to that tool, but it does not explicitly contrast with download_anda_microdata or get_dataset_info, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 phrase 'idno from search_anda' implies a search-then-fetch workflow, which is useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over download_anda_microdata, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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