Consultar RUC o cédula en el padrón

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the return fields and the fact that field names mirror the document receiver — important since there is no output schema — plus the accepted input-format tolerance. It does not mention lookup-failure behavior (e.g., not-found vs. error) or any rate/coverage limits.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the operation and return shape; nothing is padding. There is slight overlap between the 'same field names as the receiver' clause and the 'use it to complete the receiver' clause, which keeps it just short of ideal.

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 one-parameter lookup with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, return content, and input flexibility, which is sufficient. The only gap is what the agent should expect when the identifier is absent from the padrón, which matters for downstream error handling.

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description explicitly adds format tolerance beyond the schema examples: dots and check digit are both optional. That is meaningful disambiguation for a free-text identifier that an agent might otherwise over-validate.

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 and resource ('Busca un RUC o una cédula en el padrón de la SET') and enumerates exactly what comes back (razón social, tipo de contribuyente, domicilio), which separates it from siblings like consultar_contribuyente or consultar_documento. An agent can identify the operation and its payload without opening the 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 a concrete use case ('Usala para completar el receptor de una factura'), which is clear context for when to reach for it. It does not, however, exclude or name alternatives, even though several siblings (consultar_contribuyente, consultar_documento) could plausibly be confused with it.

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