Ver factura

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by stating what the response contains (lines, payments, issuer, receiver), but says nothing about behavior for an invalid or nonexistent id, or about permissions/visibility scope.

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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the parenthetical enumerating return content efficiently. No filler.

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 single-parameter read tool whose annotations cover safety and whose return contents are enumerated inline (no output schema exists), this is nearly complete. The only missing piece is failure behavior for a bad id.

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?

There is a single parameter with 0% schema description coverage; the description only partially compensates by saying the lookup is 'por su id', establishing it as the invoice identifier. It adds no format, range, or source hint (e.g., where to obtain the id) beyond the schema's integer type.

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+resource ('Obtiene el detalle completo de una factura') and enumerates the returned components (líneas, pagos, emisor, receptor), which clearly distinguishes it from list/search siblings. It does not explicitly name the alternatives (cs_list_invoices, cs_search_invoice_by_number), so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'por su id' implies this is the path to take when you already know the invoice identifier, versus browsing via cs_list_invoices, but that contrast is only inferred. No explicit when-to-use or exclusions are given.

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