cpc_validar_mandato

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and the description is consistent with a read-only audit. It adds the substantive verification criteria (which articles/faculties are checked), which is genuine context beyond annotations, but says nothing about what the audit returns or how failures are surfaced. No output schema exists to cover that gap.

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 dense sentence with the action front-loaded and the legal criteria following immediately. Every clause carries substantive meaning; no filler or repetition.

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 audit tool with no output schema, the description should signal the shape of the result (e.g., pass/fail, defect list). It fully specifies what is checked but not what comes back, leaving an agent guessing about the return value.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema already explains it is the otrosí de patrocinio y poder or escritura pública de mandato. The description adds no format or size guidance for the input text, so the 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 formalmente) and resource (texto de mandato judicial y patrocinio), then pins down the exact legal scope: facultades ordinarias Art. 7 inc. 1 and extraordinarias expresas Art. 7 inc. 2 CPC. This is unmistakably distinct from the search/retrieval siblings, which dominate the sibling list.

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 verification scope implies the use case (checking a mandate's sufficiency before relying on it), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. An agent can infer usage from the purpose but gets no routing guidance.

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