Tabla de códigos de grano

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the data is 'consultados en vivo' (live) and 'hoy' (current), implying dynamic behavior and potential latency or availability issues. However, it does not disclose response format, error handling, or any access requirements. For a simple read-only lookup, this is adequate but not rich.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with practical use cases. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool provides and why it is useful. It does not describe the exact return format, but for a code lookup table this is likely inferable. The live-data aspect is mentioned, which is important for freshness.

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 baseline is 4. The empty input schema is fully covered by the description, which needs no parameter explanations. The description adds meaning by clarifying the purpose of the codes, but no parameter semantics are needed.

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 clearly states the tool provides current grain codes recognized by ARCA, with explicit use cases: translating codes from a carta de porte and discarding outdated codes. The verb 'consultar' is implied by 'consultados en vivo', and the resource (grain codes) is specific. It differentiates from siblings by being a lookup/reference tool rather than a document-specific query.

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 clear context for when to use it: to translate or validate grain codes against ARCA's current list. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use cases are specific enough to guide an agent. The mention of 'descartar códigos de planillas viejas' implies a validation scenario, which is helpful.

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