Ver un comprobante

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the return behavior: a complete JSON representation of a saved comprobante, with the 'factura' field carrying the original data. This is useful context for an agent deciding whether the output is sufficient. It does not detail error cases or response shape beyond JSON, but for a simple read tool the disclosure is adequate.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the core output ('JSON completo de un comprobante guardado') and then clarifies the 'factura' field's purpose. There is no filler or redundant restating of the title.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description does explain the main return value and its purpose. However, it omits clarification of the required 'archivo' parameter and the surrounding retrieval context. The definition is minimally viable but leaves an agent guessing about how to identify the target comprobante.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coveragehola, and the description does not explain 'archivo' or 'entorno' at all. An agent must infer that 'archivo' is the identifier/path of the saved comprobante and that 'entorno' switches between homologation and production. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, leaving a significant ambiguity gap for a required argument.

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 tool returns the complete JSON of a saved comprobantelands, including the original data in the 'factura' field des. It is distinct from siblings like listar_comprobantes or generar_pdf because it focuses on retrieving the full stored record for reuse or credit-note construction. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast against sibling alternatives, so it stops 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 description gives explicit use cases: reusing the original data or building a credit note from it. This tells an agent when the tool is appropriate. It does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, so it lacks the exclusionary guidance needed for a 5.

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