verificar_rfc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Verifica' clearly indicates a read-style checking operation rather than a mutation, and the specific article references add useful context about the data sources. It could more explicitly state that no changes are made or that external SAT lists are consulted, but the core behavior is adequately transparent.

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?

A single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and resource. The parenthetical legal reference is informative rather than filler, and there is no redundant or vague language.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the object, the source, and the specific legal lists. The main gap is the absence of explicit routing guidance toward or away from verificar_lote, but the singular language and low complexity keep this from being a significant deficiency.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'rfc' parameter is already described with automatic normalization. The tool description only repeats that it checks an RFC, adding no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Verifica') and clearly identifies the resource (an RFC) and the target (SAT lists under Articles 69, 69-B, and 69-B Bis). The singular 'un RFC' distinguishes it from the sibling verificar_lote, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 implies the tool is used to verify a single RFC against SAT lists, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings such as verificar_lote or when not to use it. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusionary conditions, leaving some inference to the agent.

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