Listar comprobantes (Mis Comprobantes)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the run is always asynchronous, the response payload is fixed at { id, status }, and credentials (CUIT, username, password) come from server config rather than parameters. It stops short of saying whether repeated invocations spawn duplicate jobs or how failures surface, which keeps it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero redundancy: action, forced async contract plus return shape, then the next-step tool, then credential sourcing. The critical constraint (always async, only id/status) is front-loaded.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: the return shape { id, status }, the async contract, the follow-up tool, and where credentials come from. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and then poll it correctly is absent.

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 every one of the 10 parameters is already documented in-schema (including the 't' enum prompt-to-ask rule and the date-range pattern). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the emitted/received concept, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: initiates the ARCA 'Mis Comprobantes' automation to download issued or received vouchers for a CUIT. The scope (emitted vs received, CUIT-based) and the asynchronous nature are clear enough to distinguish it from data-retrieval siblings like get_last_voucher or get_voucher_info.

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?

Explicitly states the tool ALWAYS runs async (wait=false) and returns only { id, status }, then names the follow-up tool 'get_automation_details' with the returned id. This is a complete when/when-next routing instruction, not an implication.

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