Get Modelo 415 Summary (IGIC Annual Operations >€3,005)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds return elements (counterparty list, totals, filing deadline) and an example, but does not elaborate on authentication, rate limits, or other behaviors. Consistent with annotations, no contradiction.

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 each language, front-loaded with essential information. Every word adds value. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. Description adequately describes output (list, totals, deadline) and provides usage example. Could be more complete with output structure, but sufficient for the complexity level.

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 already provides full description for the single parameter 'year' (including default). Description reinforces with an example, adding no new semantics. High schema coverage (100%) sets baseline at 3.

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 the IGIC Modelo 415 summary, specifies the threshold (>€3,005), compares it to Modelo 347, and lists return content (counterparty list, totals, filing deadline). Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_modelo_347_summary by targeting Canary Islands.

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?

Provides context by equating Modelo 415 to the Canary Islands equivalent of Modelo 347, implying when to use this vs. the peninsular version. Does not explicitly list when-not or alternatives, but the comparison is sufficient for an agent with sibling tool awareness.

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