requisitos_auditoria

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds substantial non-obvious behavioral details: invalid codes cause an error (not an empty list), the `essential` flag determines measure failure, and `code` within a measure is not unique (five '1.1' exist in op.acc.5) while `position` is the true identifier. This goes far beyond the annotations and prepares the agent for real edge cases.

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 well-structured with bolded parameter names and front-loaded purpose. It is longer than minimal but earns its length by explaining tricky semantics. A minor typo ('tools.' mid-sentence) and a slightly meandering level explanation cost it a perfect score, but it remains appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema. While the description covers `code` and `level` thoroughly, it omits `limit`, `cursor`, and `essential_only` entirely. It also doesn't describe the overall return format or pagination behavior. For a tool with this complexity, the description is not complete enough to ensure correct invocation without additional context.

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. It thoroughly explains `code` (measure example, error semantics) and `level` (official categories, section vs syllabus), but provides no explanation for `limit`, `cursor`, or `essential_only`. These three parameters remain undocumented, leaving a significant gap in the agent's ability to use them correctly.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Preguntas del cuestionario de auditoría (CCN-STIC 808), en bruto.' It specifies the verb (devuelve/returns), the resource (audit questionnaire), and the raw nature. It also distinguishes itself from sibling `alcance_auditoria` by explicitly pointing to it as the correct tool for the actual system syllabus, making the purpose 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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it warns that `level` filters by the guide's section, not the system's syllabus, and says 'Para el temario real de un sistema usa `alcance_auditoria`.' This directly routes the agent to the correct sibling and clarifies the subtle distinction, covering both when to use this tool and when not to.

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