Consultar una carta de porte

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states it returns full CPE data and emphasizes the destination scale weights. It doesn't disclose error behavior, permissions, or side effects, but for a read-by-id query the main behavior is reasonably conveyed.

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 crisp sentences, front-loading the resource and data contents, with the additional reconciliation context in a separate sentence. No filler.

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 single-required-parameter lookup with no output schema, it explains returned data and the reconciliation use case. It could have added response/error notes, but the essential calling context is present.

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 schema already documents nroCTG's meaning and pattern. The description only reinforces that the lookup is by CTG, adding no new semantic detail.

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 names the resource ('carta de porte electrónica') and the exact lookup key ('a partir de su CTG'), and enumerates the returned content (grano, pesos, estado, fechas, CUITs), making it clearly distinct from generic siblings.

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?

It gives a concrete context: destination scale weights are included because they reconcile against the caller's own scale. It does not explicitly state when to use another sibling, so it misses the exclusion part of a 5.

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