Resolviendo URL del cuadernillo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses meaningful behavior: the MCP does not download or store anything, it only returns a public URL, and it additionally returns url_viewer. It also warns about the page-suffix naming quirk. Auth/permission and error behavior are not covered.

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 purpose, then behavior, then args in a clean order. Most sentences earn their place, though the detailed note about the page-suffix filename is somewhat tangential to the core call.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, return values (URL plus url_viewer), and the non-download semantics adequately. Minor gaps remain around error cases and whether the returned URL requires any authorization.

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 0%, so the description must define the single parameter, and it does: codigo is TIPO+FECHA with concrete examples ('NL20230923', 'PC20260927'). The format and examples go well beyond the bare 'string' schema, compensating for the zero coverage.

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 resource (URL de descarga del PDF completo de un cuadernillo) and clarifies the actual verb is 'resolver/return URL', not download, correcting the misleading name 'descargar'. It distinguishes its domain by noting it is the only text route for cuadernillos SIN dispositivo individual, though it does not name the specific sibling to use otherwise.

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?

Gives a clear use context: it is the only text path for cuadernillos that lack an individual device (PC/DJ/JU/CA/IN/TU), which implicitly excludes them from the device-based tools. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative sibling (e.g. obtener_dispositivo_texto) for those cases.

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