Verificar el ticket de acceso

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing the internal mechanism (a minimal test query), a privacy guarantee ('NUNCA revela el valor del ticket'), and the exact output content (works/doesn't work plus the last 4 characters). These are behavioral traits the annotations cannot express, and they directly shape how an agent should use and trust the result.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose, then the privacy/output behavior, then the usage trigger. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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 zero-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, mechanism, privacy behavior, output shape, and usage timing. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 takes no parameters, so there are no semantics to document; the baseline for a zero-param tool is 4. The empty schema is consistent with the description, which implies no input is needed to run the check.

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?

States a specific verb (verifica) and resource (ticket de acceso a la API de Mercado Público) with the scope of the check (configurado y sea válido). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like verificar_orden_compra and verificar_hora_oficial, since it validates credentials rather than data. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Úsala como primer diagnóstico cuando otras herramientas fallen con errores de autenticación', which tells the agent exactly when to reach for it. It does not name specific alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, but the auth-failure condition is a strong, actionable routing cue.

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