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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower; the description still adds value by disclosing the default newest-first ordering, the field set returned (amounts, state, SII status, public PDF link) and the underlying endpoint. It stops short of mentioning pagination behaviour or any rate/volume limits beyond what the schema states.

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?

Three tight sentences: what is returned and in what order first, then filters, then expand, then the endpoint. Every clause carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 13-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting on return shape, ordering and expand semantics. Remaining gaps (pagination via limit/offset/next_offset, the state=active/inactive switch) are already documented in the schema, so completeness is high but not exhaustive.

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 85%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns extra credit by enumerating the filter dimensions and, importantly, naming the allowed expand values (details, payments, client, office, document_type) — the schema only constrains expand items with a generic pattern, so this is information an agent could not get otherwise.

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 ('List issued documents') and immediately enumerates the concrete document kinds returned (boletas, facturas, notas de credito, guias), plus ordering, returned fields and filters. It also cross-references the sibling bsale_list_document_types for the document_type_id filter, so an agent can tell it apart from bsale_get_document (single record) without opening either schema.

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 clear usage context: which fields can be filtered on (emission date range, document type, client, office, folio, SII code) and that expand should be used to embed related data. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over alternatives such as bsale_get_document, bsale_client_unpaid_documents or bsale_sales_summary, nor any exclusions.

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