Consultar estado de un documento

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description goes further by disclosing what the response carries (SIFEN authorization protocol, mensajeRechazo on rejection) and the polling cadence/ceiling, which are real behavioral traits. It stops short of explaining error semantics or whether ERROR is retryable.

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?

Three sentences, all load-bearing: purpose and states first, return contents second, polling protocol last. Front-loaded and free of filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately by naming the state vocabulary and the rejection-reason field. For a single-parameter read tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the cdc parameter is fully documented in the schema (44-digit pattern). The description only restates the lookup key, adding no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (Consulta) and resource (estado de un documento electrónico), identifies the lookup key (CDC), and enumerates the exact terminal/non-terminal states it returns. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like consultar_evento or consultar_padron without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit operational context: call it every 5 seconds after emitting until the state is terminal, capped at 5 minutes. This is strong when-and-how guidance, though it does not name an alternative tool for cases where the document was not just emitted or for bulk listing.

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