Consultar verificación

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

The description adds real behavioral signal beyond the annotations: the result in `valores` is delivered exactly UNA sola vez and then deleted, which explains the non-idempotent, non-read-only annotation profile and warns the agent not to expect repeat delivery. It also states the operation is free, though it omits auth or rate-limit details.

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?

Purpose and status enum are front-loaded and the second clause packs the important one-time-delivery caveat without filler. It is dense and slightly run-on but every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly documents what is returned (the status enum plus `valores` when still stored). It is nearly complete for this simple single-parameter query, missing only details on polling cadence and the exact content/format of `valores`.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it only supplies minimal meaning for job_id ('por su job_id', i.e. the identification of the verification job). It does not state where the job_id comes from or its format beyond the schema's string/length constraint, so it only partially compensates.

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: consultar el estado de una verificación en RENAPO por job_id, and enumerates the exact status values the tool reports. It is clearly distinguishable from verificar_curp_renapo (which initiates a verification) and consultar_saldo.

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 mention of 'sin costo' implicitly signals a cheap polling/status check versus paid siblings, and the job_id framing implies it is used after a verification is launched. However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative is given, so usage is only implied.

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