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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation, it discloses that each call costs 1 credit, that company CUITs return a company ficha instead, and what data domains are covered (AFIP tax status, declared activity, all linked companies). This is substantial behavioral context not present in 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?

Three concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose and expected data come first, then the credit cost, then the edge-case behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With a single parameter, no output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description covers the returned data categories, the credit cost, and the main edge case. An agent has sufficient information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents cuit as an 11-digit CUIT/CUIL with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds important meaning by clarifying that a company CUIT is accepted and returns a company ficha, which goes beyond the schema's 'person' wording.

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 verb and resource: retrieve a person's ficha by CUIT/CUIL, covering identity, AFIP tax status, declared activity, and linked Argentine companies with roles. It also differentiates from ficha_empresa by explicitly describing the company-CUIT fallback.

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 context for when to call the tool: for any CUIT/CUIL, with an explicit branch for company CUITs returning company ficha data. It does not explicitly name alternative person-search tools like buscar_dirigentes, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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