consultar_estado_solicitud

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is non-mutating ('No modifica nada ni afecta al widget') and that it returns a text summary, which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior for edge cases, such as what happens if no solicitud exists or if data is incomplete, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage examples. Every sentence serves a purpose; there is no fluff or repetition of schema information.

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 no-parameter read-only tool, the description covers purpose, usage, and non-mutating behavior adequately. It lacks guidance on failure modes or preconditions (e.g., no existing application), but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use it correctly in the given context.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning context by explaining what the summary covers ('en qué paso va, qué datos se capturaron, si ya autorizó'), which helps an agent infer what information it can retrieve even though there are no parameters to document.

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 uses a specific verb 'Devuelve un resumen en texto' and clearly states the resource (solicitud de préstamo) and the content (step, captured data, authorization state). It also distinguishes itself from mutation siblings by explicitly saying 'No modifica nada ni afecta al widget'.

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 explicitly says when to call it: 'cuando el usuario te pregunte por el estado de su solicitud' and provides concrete example phrasings. However, it does not mention when not to use it or contrast with the sibling 'estado_prestamo', so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.

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