Preparar la emisión

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's 'Solo lee de ARCA' reinforces this and adds specificity about what is read. It also discloses that it returns specific fields and that it is a non-destructive preparation step, providing context beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and return values, with no redundant information. Every sentence contributes to understanding what the tool does and when to use it.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: it is for production, works on a draft, returns preview data, and is read-only. It lacks mention of error conditions (e.g., invalid draft) or the exact format of returned data, but these are minor given the clarity of the purpose and the data fields listed.

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 explain the single parameter borrador_id. It indirectly does so by saying 'de un borrador SIN emitir', indicating it is the ID of a draft. However, it does not provide additional details like format, required attributes, or how to obtain the ID, relying on the schema's title 'Borrador Id'. It adds some context but not sufficient to fully compensate for the lack of schema description.

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 states the action: preparing an emission from a draft without emitting, and specifies exactly what it returns (voucher number, recipient, total, exchange rate) for user approval. It distinguishes itself from siblings like emitir_en_produccion (which emits) and confirmar_emision (which confirms) by explicitly noting it does not emit.

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 conveys when to use this tool: before asking the user for approval, to show real data from a draft. While it doesn't name alternatives explicitly, the workflow context with siblings (emitir_en_produccion, confirmar_emision) implies it is the preliminary step. It could be improved by explicitly stating 'use this instead of emitir_en_produccion when you need to preview before emitting', but the purpose is clear.

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