Descargar el KuDE (PDF)

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: it writes a local file (explaining why readOnlyHint=false while destructiveHint=false), polls up to esperarSegundos and signals a retry if the PDF isn't ready, watermarks output as 'SIN VALIDEZ FISCAL' under a sandbox key, and warns that the embedded base64 payload is context-heavy. None of this is recoverable from the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and return value, then edge cases (polling/retry, sandbox watermark, base64 cost). No filler; every clause carries actionable 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly states the return (local path plus optional embedded PDF) and covers the tricky async/retry case. It omits what happens when the document is not APPROVED or on auth failure, but for a 3-parameter tool this is close to complete.

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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3), and the description adds real meaning on top: esperarSegundos is framed as the timeout after which the tool advises retrying, and incluirBase64 is given a concrete decision rule (client can't read the file) plus a cost warning absent from the schema text.

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 (descarga), resource (KuDE / representación gráfica en PDF), scope (documento APROBADO) and outcome (guarda en archivo local y devuelve la ruta). This clearly differentiates it from read-oriented siblings like consultar_documento or obtener_ejemplo_documento.

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?

Gives clear context: only for APPROVED documents, and explains the conditional behavior when the PDF is still being prepared (wait then retry). It also scopes incluirBase64 to 'solo si el cliente no puede leer el archivo'. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative to route away to, so it stops short of a 5.

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