leer_factura_qr

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it operates on already-decoded content and does not contact the CNMC (consistent with openWorldHint=false), which is useful context. It still doesn't say what happens on a malformed QR or what the output shape is, so it goes only slightly beyond annotations.

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 dense sentence front-loads the core action and field list, then closes with a scoping exclusion. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only single-param tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose and a scoping exclusion. However, with no output schema, the return format is undocumented, and the relation to the sibling leer_factura — the most likely source of mis-selection — is not addressed. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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% and the single parameter 'qr' is fully described in the schema (decoded QR content, the comparador.cnmc.gob.es URL). The description adds nothing beyond what the schema already conveys about the parameter. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (interpreta el QR de una factura de luz) and enumerates the exact fields it extracts (código postal, potencia, consumo, fechas, importe). The negative clarification 'No consulta la CNMC' helps distinguish it, but it doesn't explicitly route against sibling leer_factura (a near-synonym that likely parses the same bill differently), so the sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 description implies usage via 'ya decodificado' (input must already be a decoded QR string) and 'No consulta la CNMC', but never explicitly states when to use this vs leer_factura or comparar_ofertas. The agent must infer the QR-decoding precondition rather than being told it.

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