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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully adds that the check is 'en tiempo real ante el SIAT', signaling an external, live dependency (latency/availability implications). But it says nothing about error handling, what an inactive/invalid NIT yields, or whether the call is strictly read-only.

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 tight sentences, purpose front-loaded followed by the usage trigger, with zero filler. Every clause 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool this is mostly adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify return semantics (active/inactive, validity) and failure behavior. It implies the check outcome conceptually but leaves the response shape and edge cases unstated.

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 single 'nit' integer parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or syntax detail (e.g., how the NIT integer is formed), so baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Verifica') and resource ('NIT boliviano') with precise scope: real-time validation against SIAT of active status to receive invoices. An agent can clearly distinguish this validation step from the mutation tool emitir_factura.

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 tells the agent when to use it: 'Úsala antes de emitir una factura con NIT', anchoring it as a pre-check before invoicing. However, it does not name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., how it differs from consultar_estado_siat), leaving some sibling ambiguity.

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