descargar_pdf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the key non-obvious behavior: the MCP never stores files and returns a public URL on busquedas.elperuano.pe that the user must fetch themselves. It omits auth requirements, error cases, and URL validity/expiry, but the core behavior is well conveyed.

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 return value and the storage caveat, then the params. Sized well for a two-parameter tool, though the Args block restates field names already visible in the schema.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly specifies what the tool returns (a public URL). Combined with the param explanations and the sibling cross-reference, an agent has enough to invoke this correctly; permission/error behavior is the only notable gap.

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 compensate, and it does: it explains that cuadernillo is a publication sigla (pointing to listar_tipos_publicacion) and that op is an order number with an example. Only formatting details such as accepted op patterns are missing.

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 states a specific resource (the PDF download URL for a single dispositivo) and corrects the misleading tool name by making clear it returns a URL rather than a file. It implicitly contrasts with descargar_cuadernillo (single device vs. whole cuadernillo) but never names that sibling 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it is for a single device and the user downloads on their own. It cross-references listar_tipos_publicacion to resolve the cuadernillo sigla, which is genuinely useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance versus the sibling download/list tools.

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