get_client_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description indicates it is a read operation (consultar) but does not state whether any side effects occur, if authentication is required, or how it behaves with invalid input. It also does not disclose if there are rate limits or if the client info might be stale.

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 very concise, consisting of two sentences and a parameter list in Args. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and lists parameters clearly. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has a clear purpose and simple parameters, but the description lacks important usage context such as prerequisites (e.g., valid company key) and behavioral notes. Although an output schema exists to describe return values, the description does not mention any limitations or edge cases. For a simple read tool, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. The description mentions 'clave_cliente' as the client key in Aspel SAE, adding a bit of context, but it does not elaborate on the format, length, or how to obtain it. The 'empresa' parameter is only named, with no guidance on required values or defaults beyond schema.

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 tool retrieves commercial data, tax ID (RFC), address, balance, and credit limit for a client. It names a specific resource (client) and lists the key data fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on products or documents.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks information about prerequisites, such as the need for a valid client code, or scenarios where other tools might be more appropriate. Implied usage is that it is for client-related queries, but exclusions or alternatives are not mentioned.

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