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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose ordering and per-user scoping. However, it omits material behavior: whether annulled invoices are included by default (the estado enum implies yes), that results are capped by a default limit of 20 (max 100), and that this is a read-only operation.

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 tightly written sentences with the resource, scope, ordering, and filter availability front-loaded; nothing is redundant or padded.

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-annotation, no-output-schema listing tool, the description covers scope and ordering but leaves pagination behavior and default result-set composition unexplained, which an agent needs to page through history 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?

At 50% schema coverage the description should compensate, but it only echoes the two documented filters ('por fecha y estado') without clarifying formats or what OFFLINE/ANULADA mean in results. The 'limite' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, so an agent has no signal that pagination exists or defaults to 20.

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 ('listar/historial de facturas') plus scope (invoices emitted by the user) and ordering (newest to oldest), which distinguishes it from the singular sibling consultar_factura. It never names that sibling or explicitly contrast the two, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies a browsing/history use case via 'Historial' and notes the filters are optional, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and no exclusion such as 'use consultar_factura to fetch a single invoice by ID' or emitir_factura to create one.

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