Obtener un ejemplo de documento

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds real context beyond them: data is fictional/synthetic, two enum values (nota_remision, autofactura) return a docs link instead of a payload, and the payload must be mutated before emission. It doesn't describe response shape or whether the link is a URL string, leaving a small gap.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, then the per-value behavior split, then the required pre-emission action. No filler and the most decision-relevant information (which types work) is front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden; it partially discharges this by explaining the document-vs-link split and the fictional-data caveat. It stops short of describing the example's structure or format, but is sufficient for correct invocation.

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% with a documented enum, so baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema does not: it maps which enum values yield a full example versus which yield a documentation link. That materially changes what the agent should expect per parameter value.

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+resource (devuelve un documento de ejemplo con datos ficticios) and enumerates exactly which document types are produced versus which return a documentation link. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like consultar_documento or calcular_totales without inspecting 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?

Explicitly frames the output as input for emit_documento and instructs the agent to replace receptor/ítems/CDC before emitting, which is genuine when-to-use guidance. It lacks an explicit statement of when *not* to use it or which sibling to prefer when a real document is needed, so it stops short of a 5.

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