Ver información de un auditor externo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that the response includes authorization, nationality and contact data, but says nothing about behavior when the identifier is not found or about the external (open-world) data source behind it.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the record type, the returned fields and the key, with no filler. Slightly terse as a sentence fragment, but it wastes nothing.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description is largely sufficient; return values need not be explained because the output schema exists. The one gap is the absent routing hint to the sibling search_auditores.

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%, so both parameters (identificacion, format) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the RUC/cédula lookup key but adds no format, validation or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides; 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 names a specific resource (one external auditor), the fields returned (authorization, nationality, contact details) and the lookup key (RUC or cédula), so the agent knows exactly what this does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling search_auditores, but the singular 'One' implies a single-record lookup distinct from a search.

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 by the 'by RUC or cédula' lookup key and the singular framing, which suggests this is for retrieving a known auditor rather than searching. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus search_auditores, and no prerequisites or failure conditions are given.

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