get_document

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 what the tool returns (tipo, folio, emisor, receptor, montos, estado SII, historial), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, does not mention error conditions, authorization requirements, or any side effects. For a simple get, this is adequate but not thorough; a 3 reflects the missing safety disclosure.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose and return values; the second gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and is highly 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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should be self-sufficient. It covers the purpose, usage, and return content, which is good. However, the mismatch with the schema (claiming an ID parameter that does not exist) creates a significant gap in completeness. Additionally, it does not mention any limitations or error scenarios. For a simple get, a 3 is appropriate because the core information is present but the parameter inconsistency undermines completeness.

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?

The description claims the tool retrieves a document 'por su ID', implying an ID parameter, but the input schema has zero parameters. This is a direct contradiction between the description and the schema. Since the schema provides no parameter documentation, the description's mention of an ID is misleading and would cause an agent to look for a parameter that does not exist. This is a severe issue, so a score of 1 is warranted.

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 verb ('obtiene'), the resource ('documento tributario electrónico DTE'), and the mechanism ('por su ID'). It also enumerates the returned fields (tipo, folio, emisor, receptor, montos, estado SII, historial), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from list_documents (which lists documents) and get_document_stats (which provides statistics).

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 provides a clear usage context: 'Usar cuando el cliente pregunta por un documento específico.' This tells the agent when to invoke it, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks exclusions or alternative routing. A 4 is appropriate.

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