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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral value: the tool returns a link and the RUC is never transmitted to the connector, which tells the agent not to expect or parse analysis data back. It does not describe the link's form or any account prerequisites.

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 with the returned artifact front-loaded. The colon clause slightly restates the first sentence's point, but the redundancy is functional because it prevents the agent from expecting an in-chat result.

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 parameterless tool returning a URL with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, why, and the key constraint that no analysis happens server-side. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether following the link requires a MissLicita account or what the link contains.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by explaining that no RUC is passed in, removing any temptation to invent an input argument. Nothing further is needed.

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 output ('Devuelve el enlace') plus the destination and intent (put the RUC into MissLicita to see State history and matched opportunities). The explicit note that the analysis does not occur in the chat implicitly separates it from data-returning siblings like ficha_empresa, but no sibling is named outright.

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?

Gives a clear usage context: when a company wants to place its RUC and view its history with the State and best-fit opportunities. It also guards against misuse by warning that the connector never receives the RUC, so the agent should not expect an analysis result. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or exclusion conditions.

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