evidencias_auditoria

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds beyond annotations: the error behavior for a non-Annex II code, the join key (measure_code) linking it to sibling outputs, and the authoritative source. This gives the agent behavioral detail the annotations do not include.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then parameter semantics, then use-case and source context. It is dense but every sentence earns its place. Slightly run-on in the parameter section, but no filler words or redundancy.

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 has an output schema, so return values don't need explanation. The description covers the selection semantics, error case, join relationship with sibling tools, and source authority. The only minor gap is no explicit indication of pagination or result limits, but for a single-parameter lookup tool this is sufficient.

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% and the only parameter is a bare 'code' field with anyOf string/null. The description fully compensates: it explains the format with a concrete example ('org.1'), the omission semantics ('Omitido, todas'), and the error condition for invalid codes. This is complete, actionable parameter documentation.

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 opens with a clear statement of what the tool returns: the documentation an auditor can request, per measure. It grounds the resource precisely (Annex II measures) and hints at differentiation from siblings via the source note ('no el ENS Navegable') and the join relationship with alcance_auditoria and declaracion_aplicabilidad. It slightly misses full sibling differentiation but the verb+resource+scope is unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly names the question it answers ('¿qué papeles preparo?') and places it in the pre-audit preparation phase. It also signals the source (CCN-STIC 808 §6.2, not the ENS Navegable), which helps an agent route to the correct data lineage. It does not state explicit when-not-to-use cases, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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