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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: cost of 1 credit, and a hard data-restriction rule (no personal identity documents or personal credit data are accepted or returned in ChatGPT, plus BCRA situation only when identity is corroborated).

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and returned fields, then constraints; every clause carries information. It is a dense block rather than segmented sentences, which slightly hurts scannability but wastes little.

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 no output schema, the description must (and does) enumerate return contents, plus cost and platform restrictions. The one gap is that both parameters are optional in the schema and additionalProperties is false, yet the description never states that exactly one identifier must be supplied.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining where persona_id originates and by qualifying the cuit path as unavailable in ChatGPT, which affects which parameter the agent should choose.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: a person profile keyed by persona_id, enumerating returned content (name, public-official declaration, tax condition, linked companies with roles and dates). It is clearly distinguished from the company-centric sibling ficha_empresa by the 'persona que ocupa o ocupó cargos en empresas' framing.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the correct identifier source ('persona_id de buscar_dirigentes o de los dirigentes de ficha_empresa') and states the CUIT/CUIL path is available only outside ChatGPT. It does not explicitly name what to use instead when a person isn't found, but the input-sourcing guidance is unusually concrete.

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