Consultar información pública de un RUC

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the lower bar applies. The description still adds real value by bounding the returned data — 'No tax amounts' tells the agent this is identity/registry data, not financial data.

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?

Two tight sentences with the resource and scope constraint front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing can be cut without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still sketches them without redundancy. Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, an agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly; only the relationship to search_sri_ruc is left implicit.

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 documents ruc, format and include_establecimientos, including the enum and defaults. The description adds little beyond naming the returned fields, which only loosely maps to include_establecimientos. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource (public SRI record for a single 13-digit RUC) and enumerates the fields returned. The phrase 'one 13-digit RUC' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling search_sri_ruc, but it never names that alternative, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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 already hold an exact 13-digit RUC and want a single-record lookup. 'No tax amounts' is a data-scope caveat, not a when-to-use/when-not-to-use rule, and no alternative (e.g. search_sri_ruc) is offered for partial or name-based lookups.

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