evaluar_admision_piloto_real

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: the operation only reviews presence/traceability and deliberately does not build or compute the model, implying a non-mutating check. It stops short of stating permissions, expected output, or what 'trazabilidad' concretely verifies.

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 short sentence with the exclusion constraint front-loaded; no filler or repetition. It is lean to the point of underspecification, but nothing is wasted.

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 tool whose only input is an opaque nested manifest and which has no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves too much unknown: what 'entradas' means, what traceability is checked, and what result indicates admission. Adequate for a trivial tool, insufficient 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?

There is one parameter, 'manifest', a nested object with additionalProperties=true and 0% schema description coverage. The description says nothing about what the manifest must contain or what fields are inspected, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on a non-trivial structured parameter.

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 names a verb ('Revisa') and an object ('presencia/trazabilidad de entradas'), which is more than a tautology and clarifies the tool does not build or calculate the model. However, it does not tie itself to the 'pilot real' / P8F context that several siblings (obtener_contrato_p8f1_piloto_real, generar_dossier_piloto_real) share, so distinguishing it from them requires inference.

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 clause 'sin construir ni calcular el modelo' implies a when-not boundary (this is an inspection step, not a construction step), which is useful. But it names no sibling alternative and gives no explicit condition under which an agent should pick this over the contract/dossier tools nearby.

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