Buscar códigos de ARCA

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds the scope of the search (specific tables) and the ability to query homologation, which is useful behavioral context. It does not disclose output matching behavior or limits, but with annotations covering safety, this is acceptable.

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 concise sentences with no redundant wording. The core action and options are front-loaded.

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?

The tool is a simple lookup with an output schema, but the description leaves the 'texto' parameter's format or matching semantics undocumented. It also doesn't state whether the search is exact or partial, which an agent needs to know for correct invocation. Overall it's adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of the tabla enum by listing country, CUIT-per-country, and currency codes, but it provides no guidance on what 'texto' should contain (e.g., exact code, description, partial match). This is a significant gap for a required parameter.

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 specific action ('Busca') and resource ('tablas de ARCA'), and enumerates the specific code categories (country code, generic CUIT, currency code). It also notes the homologation environment, which helps distinguish it from emission/configuration siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, though none do similar lookups.

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 for looking up reference codes, and the last sentence explicitly mentions the homologation option. It does not name alternative tools or state exclusions, but the sibling set contains no other search tools, so the context is clear enough.

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