Consultar el consumo del plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing what the response contains — included, consumed, reserved, and available documents, whether extra documents are allowed, and the estimated cost in guaraníes — which matters since there is no output 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that opens with the action and resource, then lists the returned fields. Every clause carries information; no filler or repetition.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description does the necessary work of enumerating the returned fields and is backed by read-only/open-world annotations. The only gap is that it never clarifies whose plan is returned (presumably the authenticated taxpayer) or the response format.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema-baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly avoids inventing parameter detail.

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?

States a specific verb ('Muestra') and a precise resource (el plan vigente del contribuyente y su consumo del período), then enumerates the exact data points returned (documentos incluidos/consumidos/reservados/disponibles, documentos adicionales, costo estimado en guaraníes). The resource is naturally distinct from siblings like consultar_contribuyente or consultar_documento, but the description never explicitly differentiates itself from them.

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?

Usage is implied by the content: an agent can infer this is the tool for checking plan quota/consumption status. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites (e.g., whether authentication determines the taxpayer), and no named alternatives among the many sibling 'consultar_*' tools.

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