Get Modelo 130 Summary (IRPF Estimated Payment)

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, indicating a safe, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds context about the tax form and data returned but does not contradict annotations. It does not provide additional behavioral details beyond what annotations convey.

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 concise with two sentences in English followed by the Spanish translation. It front-loads the core purpose and key data fields. No unnecessary words or repetition. The structure is efficient and easy to scan.

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?

The description lists the returned fields (net income, expenses, payments, amount due), which is helpful. Since an output schema exists (not shown but indicated), the description does not need to fully define return values. The context of being a tax summary for freelancers in Spain is complete enough for this simple tool.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'period', and the description repeats the format and provides an example ('2026-Q1'). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema description, though the schema already documents the parameter adequately. The example is useful but not strictly necessary.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves an IRPF estimated payment summary for Modelo 130 filing, specifies the target users (freelancers/self-employed in Spain), and lists the returned data fields (quarterly net income, deductible expenses, previous payments, amount due). It also provides an example period. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_modelo_303_summary.

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 does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives. However, the tool's purpose is self-evident from the name and title, and it is a read-only query for a specific tax form. Implicitly, it should be used when the user needs the Modelo 130 summary, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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