Certificar Desde Carpeta Visita

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

Goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing the write behavior: it creates a 'CERTIFICADO' subfolder inside '05_ENTREGABLES' and emits interactive progress to FastMCP. Useful side-effect context, though it does not state overwrite/reversibility or auth requirements.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first sentence, then organizes the remainder under 'Cuándo usar' and 'Comportamiento y efectos secundarios' headers. Efficient, though the opening sentence is dense and slightly redundant with the section headers.

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?

Even with an output schema present, the description usefully names the generated files, their destination folder, and the side effects, and it clarifies the required input state. It omits prerequisites such as CE3X connectivity checks, which is the only notable gap for a complex end-to-end 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds only high-level context (folder contains PDFs, Catastro data, field notes) and no per-parameter semantics beyond that. 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 (certifica), the resource (el inmueble), the source (carpeta de visita with planos PDF, Catastro, notas de campo) and the concrete outputs (.cex, .xml, .pdf in 05_ENTREGABLES). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like organizar_carpeta_visita and auditar_carpeta_visita by framing it as the end-to-end certification run.

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 an explicit condition: use it when an organized visit folder is available to run the whole certification flow in one step. This implicitly positions organizar_carpeta_visita as the prerequisite, but no alternative tools or exclusions are named.

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