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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds value by noting the tool is disabled in demo ('[demo: deshabilitada]') and that it returns the CAE authorization code. It also clarifies the ARCA (formerly AFIP) context. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's action and key output. The demo note is concise and adds relevant context without unnecessary length.

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 covers the core purpose and the primary return value (CAE code), which is important since there is no output schema. It also adds the demo-disabled context. However, it does not mention error cases, prerequisites beyond authentication, or the legal significance of the document, but these gaps are minor given the description's clarity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all five parameters. The description adds no parameter-level information, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states the tool emits an ARCA-compliant electronic invoice (factura electrónica) for the authenticated business and returns the CAE authorization code. This is a specific verb+resource+scope that distinguishes it from sibling tools like emit_nota (which likely handles credit notes).

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as emit_nota or register_sale. It mentions 'for the authenticated business' which implies a prerequisite, but there is no direct statement about when to select this tool or when not to, and no mention of exclusions.

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