Verificar CURP en RENAPO

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the immediate response carries `verificacion.job_id`, the registry result (ACTIVA/BAJA/RNE/NO_ENCONTRADA) is delivered separately to `destination_id`, failure exposes `codigo` and `retry_after`, and the call costs 1 token. This is a genuinely async, cost-incurring operation that the sparse annotations do not convey.

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 purpose before the async/cost details. Slightly information-heavy but every clause (delivery model, failure fields, token cost) 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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly carries the return contract (job_id plus later status via destination). With 4 params and a nested object, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though the validar_curp boundary remains unstated.

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 75% and the description enriches it: it explains that `destination_id` is a webhook/email/chat endpoint configured in the panel and that `verificacion.*` fields are outputs. The nested `persona` comparison semantics are documented in the schema rather than the description, so it stays at 4.

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 ('Valida la CURP y la verifica además en el registro de RENAPO'), and the phrase 'además' implicitly separates it from plain validation. It does not name sibling tools like validar_curp or consultar_verificacion, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the tool that both validates and hits RENAPO, with results arriving asynchronously at a destination. But it never states when to prefer it over validar_curp (validation only) or consultar_verificacion (fetch the result), leaving routing to inference.

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