Get Modelo 202 Summary (Corporate Tax — Installment Payments)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds modest context about returned fields but no further behavioral traits (e.g., no mention of permissions or rate limits beyond annotations).

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 in English followed by Spanish translation, concise and front-loaded. Every word adds value without 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?

Description lists all returned fields despite no output schema, and covers parameter usage (example given). The only minor gap is an unexplained reference to 'M200 projection' which may require external knowledge.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no substantial semantics beyond schema, which already explains the installment values and optional omission.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves Modelo 202 summary for installment payments, listing specific fields returned (amount, due date, status, cumulative total vs M200). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming the form and payment scheme.

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?

Description implies the tool is for Modelo 202 data but does not explicitly guide when to use it versus similar siblings (e.g., frihet_modelo_200_summary). No exclusion or alternative comparisons provided.

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