evaluar_cierre_p7d_engineering_preview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds one meaningful constraint ('without enabling professional emission'), implying a safe/preview evaluation, but says nothing about required prior state, whether it mutates anything, or what the result signifies.

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 filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than true economy.

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 gate-evaluation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should convey what the gate checks and what a pass/fail implies. The one-line summary leaves the agent unable to predict the outcome or the conditions that must hold before calling it.

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 nothing for the schema to document and no syntax for the description to add. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 verb ('Evalúa') and a resource ('gate de MCP Eléctrico 0.9'), but 'gate' is vague and the description never says what is being verified or closed out. Against many sibling 'evaluar_cierre_pX' tools it does not explain how p7d differs from p2, p3, or p5.

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 versus the other gate/closure evaluators or the many 'evaluar_*' siblings. The only contextual clue is 'sin habilitar emisión profesional,' which hints at a preview mode but is not framed as usage guidance.

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