Verificar firma por hash

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only notes the absence of PDF upload, but does not disclose verification outcomes (e.g., returns boolean or error), whether it modifies state, or any prerequisites. This is minimal disclosure.

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 sentences efficiently convey the core purpose and a key advantage (no upload needed). No extraneous information; front-loaded and concise.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description still omits critical details like the return value, required authentication context, and example usage. The minimalism leaves the agent underinformed.

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% and the description does not explain the 'documentHash' parameter beyond mentioning 'a partir del hash del documento'. It fails to specify the hash format, how to obtain it, or any constraints, leaving the agent without meaningful guidance.

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 verb 'verifica' and resource 'firma de Zyta a partir del hash del documento', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'kairo_verify_document', which may handle a similar verification with a different input.

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 provides a usage clue by stating 'No requiere subir el PDF', implying the tool should be used when the document hash is available instead of uploading the PDF. But it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives like 'kairo_verify_document'.

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