check_emission_capability

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns compatible invoice types based on tax condition, but does not mention any behavioral details like authentication, rate limits, or side effects. For a simple read-only check, the description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the purpose and output without any extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description is nearly complete. It states the purpose and what it returns. Missing details like error handling for invalid CUITs are minor, and the description provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 100%, with the cuit parameter described as 'CUIT to check (11 digits)'. The tool description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 checks invoice emission capability for a given CUIT, specifying it returns compatible invoice types based on tax condition. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like emit_invoice (which performs emission) and check_delegation (different functionality).

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 implies the tool is used before emitting invoices to verify capability, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. No direct guidance on usage context or exclusions.

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