Generar Certificado Completo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature is known. The description adds real value beyond that: it is an on-disk file generation operation, specifies the exact artifacts written, states they go to the specified output directory, and notes interactive progress is emitted to FastMCP. It stops short of mentioning overwrite/collision behavior when files already exist, which is the main remaining risk for a write tool.

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 deliverables sentence, then labelled sections for usage and side effects, which makes it scannable. It is somewhat long and the 'Comportamiento' section partially restates what the write annotation already implies, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and all parameters are covered by the schema. The description supplies the usage trigger and the disk-write side effects an agent needs. Only minor gaps remain (no note on overwriting existing output files or expected runtime), so it is near-complete rather than fully 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 description coverage is 100%, with all 12 parameters documented including defaults and units (m², rango 1800-2050, formato de CP de 5 dígitos). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 for high coverage applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (genera) plus the exact resource and enumerates the three official deliverables with their formats and versions (.cex para CE3X v3.2, XML v3.0 validado con xmlcheck.exe, PDF de 15 páginas con Typst/xml2cert.exe). This distinguishes it from siblings like certificar_desde_carpeta_visita or calcular_calificacion_energetica without needing to open any schema.

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 trigger: invoke as the final phase of certification after validating envelope, climate and installations data. That is clear context for invocation. It does not, however, name or exclude a concrete alternative sibling (e.g. certificar_desde_carpeta_visita), so it falls 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.