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

The description discloses that the operation consumes saldo and is a paid COMBO service, with current rates found in consultar_precios. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, which only indicate readOnly=false, idempotent=false, and destructive=false, and it is consistent with those flags.

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 sentences carry all essential information: the bundled scope, the three input components, the combined pricing, and the balance consumption. The text is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no filler.

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?

The description is largely complete for invoking the tool: it explains what the tool does, which inputs are needed and their format, that it consumes saldo, and where to find pricing. It does not describe the return value or the behavior of the optional refs parameter, but no output schema exists and these gaps are relatively minor.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by mapping rfc to 'empresa', cfdi_xml to 'factura (XML CFDI)', and cep_xml to 'pago (XML CEP)'. However, the optional `refs` parameter is not explained, leaving a small gap.

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?

The description clearly identifies the operation as a combined 'COMBO' transaction: company verification by RFC plus invoice (CFDI XML) plus payment (CEP XML) in one call. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like verificar_empresa, verificar_factura, and verificar_pago by making the bundled scope explicit.

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 provides clear context: this is the all-in-one bundled operation 'a precio combinado' and it consumes account balance. It implies the agent should use this when all three verifications are needed, though it does not explicitly state the alternative of calling the three sibling tools separately or specify when not to use it.

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