Obtener certificado de firma

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the output includes verifyUrl but does not state read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The description is minimal and lacking behavioral context.

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 sentence that front-loads the main action and includes a necessary prerequisite. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy. It is concise and structured effectively.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description mentions the output includes verifyUrl, giving some context. However, it does not describe the certificate structure, error cases, or tie into the overall use case. It is adequate but could be more complete.

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%, meaning the parameter 'signatureId' has no description. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the parameter name, such as where to obtain the signatureId or its format. This fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool returns the JSON certificate of a signature and includes verifyUrl. It distinguishes from siblings like kairo_get_document or kairo_verify_signature by specifying the certificate aspect, but does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 description mentions 'Requiere ver el documento' (requires viewing the document) as a prerequisite, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kairo_get_document or kairo_verify_signature. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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