evaluate_system_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful domain behavior: maxima derive from system dimensions/assets/services, results carry justification and origin, and subsystems may inherit maxima or be evaluated in isolation. It does not disclose output shape or error/validation behavior.

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, front-loaded with the action, no filler. Slightly abstract phrasing but well-bounded.

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?

The tool takes one deeply nested, undocumented object and has an output schema (so return values needn't be explained), yet the description leaves key input fields (scope, compliance_profiles, active_compliance_profile) and constraint relationships unclear. The inheritance note is the main added value; more is needed for a single complex structured argument.

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?

There is a single parameter (profile) and schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema is title-only. The description hints at the profile structure (dimensions, information assets, services, subsystems) and inheritance semantics, but does not explain the critical fields an agent must populate (scope, active_compliance_profile, compliance_profiles).

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 verb 'Evalúa' with resource 'un perfil completo y sus subsistemas' against 'Anexo II' gives a recognizable purpose, but it is vague about what the evaluation produces and does not differentiate from siblings like declaracion_aplicabilidad or explain_applicability, which also touch applicability/assessment semantics.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. The sentence about subsystems inheriting vs. isolated evaluation is behavioral, not a usage rule for the agent choosing this tool.

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