List issued ARCA invoices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'This tool is read-only', which is a critical safety trait. It also clarifies it does not include unissued previews, setting expectations for the output. It does not disclose pagination, response format, or error behavior, but for a list/read tool these are less critical; the key mutation-safety trait is covered.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and then a clarifying trait. There is zero filler; every word earns its place. It is appropriately concise for a list operation.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the optional parameters, the shape of the returned records, or any constraints (e.g., maximum date range, authorization). An agent would likely need to inspect the schema or guess on key details like the meaning of pointOfSale and receiverCuit, and what the response contains. It is adequate only for the most basic understanding.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only references 'a date range', mapping to dateFrom and dateTo, but says nothing about pointOfSale or receiverCuit. The agent would need to infer their meaning from names and patterns alone, which is insufficient for proper invocation. The description adds minimal parameter context beyond what the schema already exposes.

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 'Read', the resource 'issued Factura C records from official ARCA RCEL', and the scope 'for a date range'. It explicitly excludes unissued previews, which distinguishes it from the sibling arca_prepare_invoice. This is a precise, non-tautological purpose.

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 usage by stating it reads issued records and excludes unissued previews, which hints at when to use it over prepare/issue tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide a 'use this when...' or 'do not use when...' directive, so the guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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