verificar_lote

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. It adds one useful behavioral fact: only findings are returned, implying no full-record dump. However, it does not mention read-only status, error handling, invalid RFC behavior, or side effects.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds meaningful return behavior without redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the core invocation is nearly self-contained. However, with no annotations and no mention of when to prefer verificar_lote over verificar_rfc, the description is not fully complete for correct tool selection in all contexts.

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 schema already covers 100% of the single parameter, including its type and maximum limit of 500. The description adds only the 'proveedores' example, which gives context but no substantial new parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Verifica una lista de RFCs', and adds a distinctive return characteristic: 'Devuelve sólo hallazgos'. It is distinguishable from the sibling verificar_rfc by the batch aspect ('lista'), although it does not explicitly name that differentiation.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus verificar_rfc or other siblings. The only contextual hint is 'lista' and the example 'proveedores', which implies batch use but leaves the routing decision to inference.

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