Cartas de porte recibidas en una planta

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default behavior (returns a summary with totals per grain and the 20 most recent), the existence of a detail mode, and the constraint about ARCA rejecting queries without plant number. It does not explicitly state it's read-only, but that is implicit. The performance warning about long campaigns adds useful context.

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 four sentences with no wasted words. It leads with the core purpose, then clarifies the audience, adds a technical constraint, and ends with behavioral guidance. Every sentence earns its place and is front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description explains the default return (summary) and the detail option, providing adequate context about what to expect. It covers purpose, usage, constraints, and parameter behavior. Minor gaps like exact output structure or error handling exist, but for a 4-parameter tool the description is fairly complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by advising when to use the 'detalle' parameter ('solo para rangos cortos') and reinforcing the plant requirement ('ARCA exige el número de planta'). This gives practical guidance for parameter usage.

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 a specific verb and resource: lists 'Cartas de porte que LLEGARON a una planta propia dentro de un rango de fechas'. It clearly distinguishes the tool from shipper-related queries by saying 'Es la consulta del que recibe la mercadería, no del que la despacha'. This is precise and differentiates it from likely 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?

The description explicitly states when to use (receiver) and when not ('Quien solo despacha no puede usar esto'). It explains ARCA's requirement for the plant number and gives practical advice: 'pedir detalle solo para rangos cortos'. This provides clear context for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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