Estado de los servicios de ARCA

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does a good job by explicitly stating that the tool does not use the certificate and does not query data, making its read-only, credential-independent behavior clear. It does not describe the response format or possible error statuses, but that is a minor gap for a zero-input health check.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds decision-relevant context about when to use the tool and why it is safe to use without credentials.

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 the zero-parameter schema, absence of output schema, and the data-oriented sibling tools, the description supplies the essential information: what the tool checks, when to call it first, and that it requires no credentials. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it could be slightly richer by mentioning what kind of response the health check returns.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is already complete and the description does not need to explain parameter details. The note about not using the certificate reinforces that no credentials are required, which is useful caller guidance beyond the empty schema.

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 and resource: Chequea si los servidores de ARCA están respondiendo. It also states what the tool is not for by noting it does not use the certificate or query anyone's data, which clearly separates it from data-querying siblings like consultar_cpe and consultar_padron.

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 gives an explicit usage context: it is lo primero que conviene mirar cuando algo falla, and explains its diagnostic purpose of distinguishing an ARCA outage from a credential problem. It does not name specific sibling tools or give when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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