evaluar_coordinacion_temporal_p5e

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 discloses only a narrow scope exclusion and says nothing about whether the evaluation is read-only, what inputs are required, what result is produced, or how failures are reported.

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?

The description is a single short sentence, but it is drastically under-specified rather than concise. It omits information an agent needs while adding only a small scope caveat.

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 seven required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description is far too thin to support correct invocation. It provides almost no context beyond the tool name.

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?

All seven parameters are required and schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description mentions none of them. It does not compensate for the empty schema documentation in any way.

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?

It states a verb and a scope ('Evalúa margen temporal puntual') and adds a negative scope clause ('no declara selectividad total/backup'), which gives some differentiation. However, 'margen temporal puntual' remains vague and the description does not clearly distinguish this tool from sibling coordination and contract tools.

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 phrase 'no declara selectividad total/backup' implies a limitation on when it applies, but there is no positive when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternate sibling named. An agent cannot confidently choose this tool versus related P5e contract or selectivity tools.

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