cbr_estudio_titulos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context (the 10-year legal basis and the defect classes it detects), but says nothing about output format, how findings are structured, or performance on large input lists.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the legal basis is parenthetically embedded and every clause names a concrete capability. Nothing to trim.

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 an analysis tool with no output schema and a nested array input, the description should hint at what the audit returns (findings list, severity, per-inscription results). It names the defect classes it looks for but leaves the response shape entirely unspecified.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the 'decenal' (10-year) concept tied to anios_requeridos' default but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Audita') and a well-defined resource (cadena de títulos de dominio decenal e inscripciones CBR), plus the defects it hunts for (rupturas en la tradición, gravámenes no alzados, falta de posesión efectiva). An agent can tell what it does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closest sibling cbr_checklist_documentos.

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?

Usage is only implied by the audit scope; there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this versus cbr_checklist_documentos or the search tools. No prerequisites (e.g., required input data shape) or exclusions are given.

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