Ver documentos de una colección del IESS

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds two useful facts beyond that: results include direct links, and one collection has a mandatory filter. It says nothing about result size, pagination, or what happens with an empty query.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the collection-scoping constraint is stated up front. It is a noun-phrase fragment rather than a verb-led statement, so it is efficient but slightly less immediately actionable than a full imperative sentence.

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 100% parameter coverage, the description needn't explain return values. It supplies purpose, link-return behavior and the one conditional parameter rule; only pagination/size expectations are absent, which is minor here.

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 the schema documents each parameter's meaning and the coleccion enum already carries long explanatory text. The description adds a conditional requirement (anio mandatory for informes_auditoria) that is not encoded anywhere in the schema, which is real added semantics.

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 the specific resource (documents in one IESS collection) and a distinctive return trait (direct links). It is clearly distinct from list_iess_colecciones (which enumerates collections), though it does not name that sibling 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?

Gives one concrete usage constraint — 'anio is required for informes_auditoria' — which is genuine when-to-use information. It never states the alternative (e.g. call list_iess_colecciones first to discover valid collection values, or use search_archivos for general file search).

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