Consultar un comprobante emitido

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states 'Solo consulta' and 'no autoriza comprobantes ni pide CAE,' disclosing its read-only nature and that it does not trigger authorization. This is strong, though it omits other aspects like authentication requirements.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the key behavioral constraint. Every word earns its place with no fluff.

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 simple query tool, the description covers purpose, behavior, and return contents. It does not differentiate from the similar sibling consultar_cpe, and there is no output schema, but the details given (importes, IVA, CAE, estado) are sufficient for an agent to know what to expect.

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%, as each parameter has a descriptive label. The tool description adds no extra parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description states it provides details of an already issued voucher, specifying amounts, VAT, CAE, and status. This is a clear verb+resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like consultar_cpe, so it misses the top score.

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 for querying vouchers and explicitly says it does not authorize or request CAE, which gives some context. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions relative to other tools, so guidance is only implied.

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