Consultar el padrón por CUIT

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. It implies a data retrieval but leaves the behavioral profile ambiguous.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the returned data fields and then provide the practical purpose. There is no fluff or redundant phrasing, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description lists the specific data returned and the intended use case, which covers most of what an agent needs. It does not mention error handling or response format, but given the simplicity of the tool, this is adequate.

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%: the only parameter 'cuit' is fully described with a pattern and explanation. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it earns the baseline score of 3 for not needing to compensate.

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 uses a specific verb ('consultar') and a concrete resource ('padrón por CUIT'), and enumerates the exact data fields returned (razón social, estado de la clave fiscal, domicilio, régimen impositivo, impuestos, actividades). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with CPEs, grain types, or service status—none of which involve CUIT lookup.

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 states a clear use case: 'saber contra quién se está operando y qué tratamiento impositivo le corresponde'. This tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but given the siblings are unrelated, the context is sufficient.

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