requisitos_articulos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only, non-mutating safety profile is covered — and the description is consistent with it (no contradiction). The description adds value by explaining the documentary/governance nature of the checks and citing the source (CCN-STIC 808 §6.1). However, it discloses nothing about response behavior, pagination, or filtering; the fact that an output schema exists lowers the burden, keeping this at a solid 3.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, then builds context across three short paragraphs. Every sentence contributes something (scope, the audit-half distinction, evidence meaning, source attribution). It is slightly more verbose than strictly necessary for a zero-parameter tool, but nothing is wasted.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the essential ground: what the tool checks, how it splits from the Anexo II audit, what `evidence` refers to, and the governing source standard. The main remaining gap is not explicitly tying this tool to its sibling requisitos_auditoria / evidencias_auditoria, but that is a minor omission for a passive, parameterless tool.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters and the schema coverage is trivially 100% (empty properties object), so there is nothing for the description to document. Per the rubric, 0 params warrants a baseline of 4. The description appropriately spends no time on parameter syntax.

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 ('articulado del RD 311/2022') and a specific kind of operation ('Comprobaciones de auditoría'). It distinguishes its scope from the Anexo II half of the audit, which separates it from related tools. However, it never explicitly names a sibling tool, so an agent must infer the differentiation from the 'esta es esa mitad' framing rather than being told which tool does the other half.

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 gives solid contextual guidance: it explains that an audit verifies both the articles and Annex II, positions this tool as one half, and notes this is where the auditor typically starts ('por las que suele empezar el auditor'). It also clarifies the evidence concept. But it stops short of explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use instructions or naming alternatives like requisitos_auditoria or evidencias_auditoria.

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