evaluar_cierre_p2

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

No annotations and no output schema, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't say whether this is read-only, what checks are performed, what constitutes a pass/fail, or what the result contains. 'Coherencia del modelo activo' is vague about the actual behavioral semantics.

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 with no wasted words. Brevity is fine, though it is achieved partly at the cost of necessary detail.

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 validation tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should clarify what is validated and what the outcome means. Instead it leaves 'P2 contract' and 'active model coherence' undefined, so an agent cannot confidently decide to call it or interpret its result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline of 4 applies. The description neither helps nor hurts here.

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 clear verb (Evalúa) and two objects (el contrato de producto P2 v1, la coherencia del modelo activo), so the general action is discernible. However, 'P2' is unexplained jargon and the description does nothing to distinguish it from sibling evaluators like evaluar_cierre_p3, evaluar_cierre_p5, or evaluar_cierre_p7d_engineering_preview.

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?

No indication of when to invoke this tool versus the many other 'evaluar_*' siblings, nor any prerequisites (e.g. that a P2 contract must exist). The agent must infer usage 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.