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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine non-obvious behavior: the output is a static example, not real data, and it intentionally omits infoTributaria.tipoDocumento with the reason and the required workaround — exactly the kind of context an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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, front-loaded with the return value, followed by the equally important omission caveat. No filler, though the second sentence packs the reasoning, the CLI case and the MCP case together and reads slightly run-on.

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 only one parameter, no output schema, and covered annotations, this is close to complete: it describes what is returned, why one field is missing, and how to compensate. It stops short of sketching the payload shape, but that is discoverable from the returned JSON itself.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by mapping each human-readable name to its code (factura=01, liquidacion de compra=03, nota de credito=04, nota de debito=05, guia de remision=06, retencion=07) and by clarifying that the value is also the routing segment, adding meaning the schema alone does not convey.

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 and resource: returns a sample JSON payload ready for the emission HTTP POST, per comprobante type. It enumerates the concrete types (01 factura, 03 liquidacion de compra, 04, 05, 06, 07) and what accompanies the payload (the guide link), so an agent can distinguish it from documentation-lookup siblings like leer_guia or consultar_referencia.

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?

Explains the intended use (feed the result into the emission POST) and gives a concrete caveat: tipoDocumento is deliberately absent because the type travels in the route, and must be added manually for CLI or the account MCP. It does not name alternative sibling tools or say when not to use it, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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