Resolviendo URL del PDF

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers the single most important trait: the MCP never stores files and only returns a public URL on busquedas.elperuano.pe. This directly clarifies that despite the name 'descargar_pdf', no file is downloaded. It omits auth or rate-limit context, keeping it short of a 5.

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 compact, front-loaded sentences: purpose first, then the key caveat, then arg definitions. No filler; the only slight redundancy is the title restating URL resolution.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the critical non-storage behavior, and both parameters. An agent can call it correctly without further inference, though sibling routing remains implicit.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains 'cuadernillo' as a publication code with a pointer to listar_tipos_publicacion and 'op' as an order number with the concrete example '2558398-1'. Both required params gain meaning beyond the bare string types.

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 action and resource: it returns the download URL of the PDF for an individual 'dispositivo'. The phrase 'de un dispositivo individual' implicitly contrasts with the sibling descargar_cuadernillo (bulk publications), helping disambiguation, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 tells the agent to use listar_tipos_publicacion for the 'cuadernillo' code and clarifies the user must perform the actual download, but it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings like obtener_dispositivo, buscar_por_op, or descargar_cuadernillo.

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