Mx Get Supported Scope

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure duty and excels: it states the tool returns scope information, lists exact supported CFDI versions and complementos, names the implemented operations, and explicitly calls out what is not implemented ('PAC submission transport and later-phase complementos are not'). This gives a transparent view of behavior and limitations.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then layers supporting details: scope source, implemented operations, excluded features, and return value. Every sentence adds useful context and none is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 zero-parameter introspection tool with an output schema, this description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what scope information is returned, what is covered, what is not covered, and where the authoritative context lives, so there is no ambiguity about calling 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?

The tool accepts zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful meaning by explaining that the returned ScopeInfo describes current scope, which is about as much parameter semantics as an empty schema needs.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return the CFDI document types, complementos, and sealing modes this package supports.' It clearly identifies this as an introspection capability and distinguishes it from the operational siblings by describing what it reports.

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 explicitly tells callers when to use it: 'for callers to check before assuming a document type or complemento is supported.' It also names the sibling tools and notes which are implemented versus not, but it does not explicitly say when not to use it or directly route to an alternative tool, so it stops short of full when/ when-not guidance.

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