estado_datos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It frames the tool as a status query and lists exactly what it reports, which strongly implies a safe, read-only operation. It does not mention refresh/network behavior or failure modes, but no destructive or surprising behavior is indicated.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the core concept ('Estado del dataset') and uses a colon to list three concrete status dimensions. Every word earns its place.

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 required parameters and an output schema available, the description sufficiently covers tool selection and expected content. It enumerates the status dimensions and does not need to describe return structure because the output schema already exists.

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 has zero parameters and the schema fully reflects that, so there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed.

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 identifies the resource ('dataset') and the specific status facets it exposes: SAT-declared validity, counts, and last import. It lacks an explicit verb but is unambiguous and clearly distinguishable from siblings like actualizar_datos and verificar_rfc.

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 purpose is clear enough to imply 'use this when you need dataset status', and the listed facets suggest it complements actualizar_datos and verificar_rfc. However, the description never explicitly states when to use it versus those alternative tools or when not to use it.

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