ver_lote

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavior: it returns only images newer than "desde", emits a final summary when the batch ends, and blocks up to 25 seconds. That long-poll semantics are exactly what an agent needs to avoid a polling loop and is not in the annotations.

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?

Two dense sentences plus one concrete example object, with the return shape front-loaded and the long-poll rule immediately after. Nothing is padded and the example disambiguates the call format.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return, which it does at the level of 'new images since desde' and 'summary when it ends', though it never names the response fields (e.g. siguiente_desde is only mentioned inside the parameter schema). For a read-only polling tool this is largely 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 100%, so the schema already defines id, desde, and esperar_segundos in detail. The description reinforces the coordination semantics (desde as a continuation cursor from the previous answer) and supplies a worked example, but adds little that the schema does not already say.

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 precisely what the tool returns: the batch's progress, the new images since "desde", and a closing summary. It doesn't explicitly name its siblings (empezar_lote, cancelar_lote), but the id parameter's origin already establishes it as the companion reader to empezar_lote.

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?

It gives clear guidance on the long-poll pattern: use esperar_segundos (max 25) to wait rather than re-asking in a loop. The condition for choosing a wait versus an immediate read is stated, though there is no explicit statement of when not to use the tool.

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