explain_applicability

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-open-world operation. The description adds that the output is an explanation of applicability status (applies, does not apply, forced), which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, but it does not describe permissions, scope, or limitations.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though its brevity contributes to the under-specification captured in other dimensions.

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 a complex nested profile object and has 0% schema description coverage, yet the description is only one sentence. Although an output schema exists, the description does little to help an agent understand required inputs, optional subsystem scoping, or how to construct the profile.

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, but it only loosely maps 'una medida' to code and 'un perfil' to profile. It gives no meaning, format, or role for subsystem_id and does not explain the complex SystemProfile input.

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 names a specific action and target: it explains why a measure applies, does not apply, or was forced by a profile. It is clear enough to distinguish from generic measure lookup, but it does not name or contrast with siblings such as declaracion_aplicabilidad or evaluate_system_profile.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not condition. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage from sibling names.

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