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

Annotations already cover the read-only profile, and the description adds genuine context beyond that: the result is a URL rather than the file itself, the archive is one ZIP with per-client folders, and the download requires the same credentials. It does not mention expiry, size limits, or latency, which would matter for a bulk export.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core return value front-loaded and the credential note placed last where it belongs. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains what comes back (a URL to a single ZIP with a folder per client). The 'accepted client' qualifier is unexplained, but for a 2-parameter read-only tool the remaining gaps are minor.

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 coverage is 50%: quarter is documented in the schema, year is not. The phrase 'for a year or year+quarter' clarifies the relationship between the two parameters (quarter narrows the range, omission means full year), which is modest added value over the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial coverage.

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 (return the download URL) and resource (a single ZIP containing every accepted client's export), and enumerates contents (invoices, expenses, libros, modelos). This clearly separates it from per-client siblings like gestoria_facturas_mandante or get_libros_registro, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied through the year / year+quarter framing and the note to download with the same credentials, which is useful auth context. It does not say when to prefer this bulk export over the per-mandante or per-documento tools, nor any prerequisites (e.g. what 'accepted' requires).

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