Buscar códigos de comercio exterior

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so safety is covered. Beyond that, the description adds two things the annotations do not: the requirement for an INDEC_API_TOKEN and the accent-insensitive matching behavior. It does not clarify how 'texto' and 'codigo' interact if both are supplied, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the first states scope and search modes, the second gives the concrete use case plus the auth requirement. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 no output schema, the description could have said more about what a match list looks like or what happens on multiple fuzzy hits, and it doesn't state whether both search parameters may be combined. For a four-parameter lookup tool with an enum-constrained type filter, though, the description covers enough to call it 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 75%, with 'tipo', 'texto' and 'codigo' documented but 'limit' not; the description adds that matching is accent-insensitive, which the schema does not say. It also frames 'texto' and 'codigo' as alternative lookup modes, though it leaves precedence unspecified when both are provided.

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 verb and resource ('Busca en el diccionario de comercio exterior') and enumerates exactly which dictionaries are covered (países, rubros, subrubros, usos económicos, GCE). The translation examples ('Brasil' → código de país, código → nombre) make the resource unmistakable against the sibling tools, which all query datasets rather than a code dictionary.

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?

It states the concrete situation that selects this tool — resolving a name to a code or a code to a name — which is clear usage context. It gives no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, but the dictionary-lookup framing is sufficiently distinct from the dataset-query siblings that an agent can route correctly.

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