Generador de Formularios Oficiales SNCC y Expediente (Sobre A y B)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description does not contradict it (generation appears to return content, not mutate state). The description usefully discloses the computed content — exact ITBIS 18% breakdown and a pre-submission checklist — but says nothing about return format (documents as text? PDF?) or whether the generated output is persisted anywhere.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and scope in the first clause, then a tight numbered list of deliverables with no filler sentences. The enumeration is long but each item is a distinct artifact, so every line 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?

For a 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what is produced but not what comes back or how the two optional parameters (tiempo_entrega_dias, descripcion_servicio) affect the generated documents. Adequate for invocation, but an agent still cannot predict the response shape.

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 100% across all 9 parameters, so the schema already carries full parameter meaning; the description adds nothing per-parameter. Baseline 3 applies. It does implicitly tie monto_ofertado_subtotal to the ITBIS calculation, but the 18% rate is the only semantic detail the description contributes beyond the 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?

States a specific verb (genera) and a precisely scoped resource, then enumerates the five exact artifacts produced (SNCC.F.042, declaración jurada art. 14, carta formal, SNCC.F.033, checklist). It is immediately distinguishable from every sibling, which are all search/analysis tools rather than document generators.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the tool to run when assembling an offer package for a DGCP process, and the checklist item hints at admissibility verification. There is no explicit 'use this when…' statement, no prerequisites (e.g. valid RPE, active process code), and no exclusion of alternatives.

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