Que copia de cada fuente se esta usando

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description's 'No sale a la red' restates openWorldHint=false in plain language and adds the diagnostic framing, but discloses nothing further about cost, freshness guarantees, or failure modes.

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 short sentences: what is reported, why it matters, and the network constraint. The purpose is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

With zero parameters, an output schema describing the returned cache data, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is essentially complete for an agent to call it correctly. Only a note on whether results can be empty for never-fetched sources is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter meaning for the description to carry, and the schema is trivially complete.

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?

The description names the concrete resource (the cached file per data source, its timestamp, and its size) rather than restating the name 'diagnostico'. It is clearly a meta/diagnostic tool distinct from the data-returning siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with any of them.

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?

It gives a clear use case: 'Sirve para saber si un numero viejo viene de una copia vieja', telling the agent to call this when results look stale. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, but the intended trigger is unambiguous.

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