Listar comprobantes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable context by stating the data source (carpeta de datos) and ordering (newest to oldest), which are not present in annotations or schema.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose and ordering, the second explains the filter parameter. It is front-loaded and compact, with no wasted words.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description does not explain the meaning or defaults of `limite` and `entorno`, which are essential for an agent to call the tool correctly. It only covers `buscar`, leaving significant context missing for a list endpoint with multiple options.

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 that `buscar` filters by text and lists searchable fields, but it leaves `limite` (limit) and `entorno` (environment) entirely undocumented. For a tool with 3 parameters and zero schema descriptions, this is only partial coverage.

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 clearly identifies the resource (comprobantes guardados en la carpeta de datos) and the order (del más nuevo al más viejo), which distinguishes it from siblings like ultimo_comprobante (single record) and listar_borradores (drafts). The verb 'listar' in the title reinforces the action.

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 gives a specific use case for the `buscar` parameter (filter by client name, file, date), but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like ver_comprobante or ultimo_comprobante. The intended usage is implied rather than guided.

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