cl_citar

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the whole burden. It partially discloses the return keys (ok, faltantes, sin_fuente_verificable), but says nothing about what 'verificar' actually checks against, whether external calls or side effects occur, or what makes a reference 'sin_fuente_verificable'.

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 zero filler; the action is front-loaded and the return keys are listed compactly. Brevity is not the issue here – under-specification is.

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 annotations, no output schema, and an entirely undocumented parameter, the description would need to do much more work. It leaves the reference format, the verification source, and the meaning of the three result buckets undefined for a tool whose whole purpose is validation.

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% for the single parameter, and the description only implies batch semantics via 'lote'. It never clarifies what a 'referencia' looks like, nor how to interpret the anyOf allowing either a bare string or an array of strings (is a string treated as one item or split?).

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 gives a concrete verb+resource ('Verifica un lote de referencias'), which is more specific than the cryptic name cl_citar alone. It does not, however, distinguish the tool from siblings like cl_buscar or cl_documento, so the agent gets purpose but not differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool. The sibling list is never referenced, so the agent must guess whether this or cl_buscar/cl_documento is the right entry point.

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