Estimar Envolvente Por Defecto

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description's 'Comportamiento' section largely restates this ('operación analítica de solo lectura... no altera archivos ni estado persistente'), adding little beyond the annotations. It omits output detail and any handling of edge cases such as years outside the tabulated regimes.

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-loaded with the core purpose, then clearly delimited sections for when-to-use and side effects. The explicit 'Read-Only' restatement is slightly redundant given annotations, but structure and ordering are strong and the text is appropriately sized.

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 analytical tool with an output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is computed, the normative basis, when to prefer it, and which sibling to use instead. Return values need not be described since an output schema exists.

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%, with both parameters documented (zona_climatica with CTE DB-HE examples, ano_construccion with Catastro/writing examples). The description adds contextual meaning by linking ano_construccion to the historical regulatory bands, but duplicates rather than extends the schema's own documentation.

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 (estimar) and resource (transmitancias térmicas de fachadas, cubiertas, suelos y huecos) and even enumerates the regulatory regimes (NBE-CT-79, CTE-HE-2006/2013/2019) that define the output. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like registrar_ensayo_flujometria_termica_in_situ and calcular_puentes_termicos.

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?

Explicit 'Cuándo usar' section gives the triggering condition (no in-situ flujometría testing and no known construction reports) and explicitly routes the agent to the alternative ('registrar_ensayo_flujometria_termica_in_situ') for real measurements. Nothing left to inference.

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