critique_documento

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the audit dimensions and that it runs on the product's critique engine, but says nothing about latency, output format, or cost of the optional provider call.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and then lists scope; nothing is wasted. The parenthetical dimension list is informative rather than filler.

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 read-only analysis tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the definition is mostly sufficient, but with no output schema it does not hint at what the audit returns (report, score, findings), which an agent would benefit from knowing.

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 'texto' and 'provider' are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra syntax or format detail for either parameter, 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+resource ('Auditoría forense de un borrador judicial') and even enumerates the five audit dimensions, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. However, it does not differentiate itself from the very similar sibling 'clinica_auditar_borrador', leaving ambiguity about which audit tool to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the closest alternative, 'clinica_auditar_borrador'. The phrase 'con el motor de crítica del producto' implies a specific engine but gives no condition that tells the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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