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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add real behavioral context: the rfc parameter triggers a lookup of the taxpayer's situación to narrow the applicable branch, and omitting it returns all branches. It also signals a self-describing escape hatch ('ver tipos_conocidos en la respuesta cuando no esté cubierto'). It never states the operation is read-only/non-mutating or what happens on an unrecognized tipo_acto beyond that hint.

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?

One front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a tight per-parameter block; no filler, no repetition of the schema, and the optionality of rfc is stated up front in its own entry.

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 3-parameter, single-level tool with an output schema present, the definition covers purpose, all parameters, format, and the conditional branch behavior. The remaining gap is the lack of a valid tipo_acto value list or a stated fallback action when the type is unknown, which matters because that field is required.

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 0%, and the description compensates for all three parameters: tipo_acto is defined as the notified-act identifier with a pointer to valid values, fecha_notificacion is given an explicit ISO format (AAAA-MM-DD), and rfc is marked optional with its conditional effect. The only gap is that valid tipo_acto values are not enumerated and must be discovered from a prior response.

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 opening line states the resource ('un acto del SAT') and the deliverable ('medios de defensa ... con sus plazos calculados'), which is more specific than the bare tool name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling explicar_plazo, so an agent must infer the split (compute defense options vs. explain a single deadline).

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?

Usage is implied: call it when you have a notified act and its notification date and need defense means with computed deadlines. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of when explicar_plazo is the better choice, leaving the agent to infer the boundary from the sibling's name.

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