ocr_plan_documento

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns a plan, its fundamento and alternatives, and explicitly delegates the final decision to the harness — a non-obvious advisory contract.

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 action before branching into the decision criteria. Information-rich with little waste, though the embedded legal citation and type list make it heavier than strictly necessary.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the return shape (plan, fundamento, alternativas). For a 3-parameter planning tool this is close to complete; only the sibling-routing relationship is left implicit.

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 the three parameters are already documented. The description's listing of tipo_documento values merely echoes the enum documented in the schema and adds no new semantics (e.g., how the value changes the plan).

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 (recomienda/cómo extraer el texto) and resource (PDF OCR plan), and clarifies it produces a plan rather than performing the extraction. It does not name the obvious sibling ocr_extract_pdf, so the routing distinction must be inferred from 'la decisión es del harness'.

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?

It explains the internal decision logic (native vs OCR, DPI by type, double pass for deadlines/figures), which reads as guidance about the plan's content rather than when to call this tool versus ocr_extract_pdf. Usage context is implied but never stated as 'call this before extracting'.

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