auditar_modelo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses that the process is deterministic QA and that it yields a gating verdict on emission enablement, which is real behavioral context. It omits whether the call mutates state, what permissions are required, and whether the verdict is persisted.

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 naming the action first and the reported outcome second, with no filler. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably terse given the missing parameter guidance.

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?

For a 1-parameter evaluation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the purpose and the nature of the result but leaves the parameter undefined and the return shape unexplained. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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?

The single parameter estudios_requeridos has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so an agent gets no help on what values to supply or whether it is required. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 action (deterministic QA execution) and the outcome it produces (whether the model can be enabled for emission), which is clearer than a bare 'audit model'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as validar_construccion_rev0 or evaluar_cierre_* , leaving ambiguity about when an audit differs from a validation.

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?

There is no statement of when to invoke this tool versus the many validar_/evaluar_/verificar_ siblings, nor any prerequisite (e.g., model must be built first). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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