rut_validar_chile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the check is a deterministic Módulo 11 computation returning the canonical format, but says nothing about invalid-input behavior (error vs. false) or edge cases like RUTs with non-standard separators.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with method and output trailing. Nothing is redundant and nothing needed is omitted.

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 output schema the description carries the return-value burden and does state the canonical format result, which is adequate for a one-parameter validator. It stops short of describing the failure path (what the agent gets for an invalid RUT), which is the one remaining gap.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as accepting RUTs 'con o sin puntos/guion'. The description adds no further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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 names a specific verb (valida), a precise resource (RUT chileno de persona natural o jurídica), the algorithm used (Módulo 11) and the result produced (formato canónico). No sibling tool in the list covers RUT validation, so an agent can route to it unambiguously.

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 only implied: the description never states when to call it versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. For a single-purpose validator the intent is self-evident, but the definition itself contributes no routing guidance.

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