resolver_factor_normativo_ampacidad

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 usefully discloses that the output is a portable ``factor_p3`` and that downstream revalidation against routing P3A and Iz_base normativa is required before use, which is real behavioral context. However, it says nothing about failure modes, permissions, or what happens when exact resolution fails.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core action/output is front-loaded before the caveat. Slightly cryptic due to dense domain jargon, but structurally efficient.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and an opaque nested input object, the description should carry much more. It does not describe the shape of ``factor_p3``, the expected ``consulta`` structure, or the meaning of allowing a secondary dataset, leaving significant gaps for a 3-parameter resolver.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters, one of which is an open nested object (``consulta`` with additionalProperties true), and the description explains none of them. ``dataset_id``, ``consulta``, and ``permitir_dataset_secundario`` are left entirely to the agent to infer, so 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 verb ('Resuelve') and a specific resource/artifact ('factor ``exact_rows_v1``'), plus the produced output ('``factor_p3`` portable'). This distinguishes it from the sibling ``resolver_factor_agrupamiento_ampacidad`` (grouping factor) by naming the factor kind it resolves, though it does not explicitly call out the contrast.

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?

It hints at placement in a workflow by naming ``definir_condiciones_ampacidad`` as the downstream step and stating that exact resolution alone is not sufficient to apply the factor. It never states when to call this tool instead of ``resolver_base_normativa_ampacidad`` or ``definir_aplicabilidad_normativa_ampacidad``, so usage is implied rather than specified.

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