Buscar código CABYS

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 usefully notes that results include the IVA rate, but says nothing about result ordering, relevance matching, or what happens when no code matches — relevant for a catalog search with 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?

Two tight sentences: what it does first, domain justification second. Minimal waste, though the invoice sentence is more motivation than actionable guidance.

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 two-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the returned fields, and domain context adequately. Missing only the shape of a result item (code, description, IVA) and empty-result behavior.

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%, so both parameters (descripcion, limite 1–50) are already documented. The description reinforces that descripcion is a product or service and that output carries the IVA rate, but adds no query-syntax or matching guidance beyond the schema examples.

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 (busca) and resource (catálogo CABYS) plus the payload returned (códigos con tarifa de IVA). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling obtener_cabys, which by name appears to be the code-lookup counterpart, so sibling disambiguation is left implicit.

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 second sentence gives domain context — every good or service on a Costa Rican electronic invoice needs a CABYS code — which implies when the tool is needed. However, it never states when to prefer this over obtener_cabys or consultar_exoneracion, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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