Analizar Ficha Equipo Clima

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description largely restates this ('Read-Only', 'Sin efectos secundarios en disco'). It adds that the operation is NLP-based extraction, which is mildly informative, but discloses nothing about accuracy limits, handling of ambiguous or missing fields, or what happens when no power/performance value is found.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by clearly labelled 'Cuándo usar' and behavior sections. Slightly verbose in restating the read-only nature, but each section is short and earns its place.

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 single-input analysis tool with an output schema (so return format needn't be explained), the description covers purpose, trigger context, and safety profile. What is missing is guidance on fallback behavior when extraction fails or values are absent, which matters for an NLP extraction tool.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the argument fully, including an example string. The description's added detail about extraction targets concerns outputs rather than the input parameter, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (analiza/extrae) on a specific resource (descripción textual o ficha técnica de un equipo térmico) and enumerates exactly what is extracted (potencia nominal kW, SCOP/COP/SEER, vector energético). It also names the equipment types and the CE3X target, so it is clearly distinguishable from all listed siblings, none of which parse equipment datasheets.

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 'Cuándo usar' section gives concrete triggers: technical notes, photo-of-nameplate transcriptions, manufacturer catalogs, in order to parameterize thermal installations in CE3X. This is clear invocation context, though it names no exclusion or alternative sibling (e.g., when to use the BIM or PDF-plan analyzers instead).

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