Guía de alta en ARCA

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and non-open-world, and the description adds behavior beyond that: omitting 'seccion' returns the complete guide while named sections return that part. Nothing about the description contradicts the annotations.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the purpose appears first, and the parameter behavior follows in one short sentence. A minor clarity improvement would be to phrase the default behavior as a complete sentence, but it remains efficient.

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 one-optional-parameter reference tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the necessary selection behavior and section inventory. It does not detail each section's contents, but that is not required for the agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, but the description compensates by listing all section values and defining the null case ('Sin sección, la guía completa'). It adds useful labels such as 'paso1 (clave y CSR)' and 'homologacion (WSASS)' that the enum alone would not convey.

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 identifies the resource ('alta en ARCA') and the deliverable (step-by-step guide plus error table), which is clear even though it lacks a strong verb. It does not explicitly differentiate from the operational sibling tools, but the reference nature is evident from 'Guía'.

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?

It explains the main usage decision: 'Sin sección, la guía completa' and enumerates the selectable sections. It does not discuss when to prefer this over sibling tools, but for a documentation tool the context is clear and no exclusion is needed.

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