Get Modelo 347 Summary (Operations >€3,005 Annual Recap)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns per-party totals, but does not clarify the default behavior if the optional 'period' parameter is omitted, leaving ambiguity.

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 and front-loaded with key details, but it repeats the same information in Spanish, increasing length unnecessarily. Still efficient overall.

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 simple read-only summary with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, threshold, return content, and an example. Missing default behavior for 'period' is a minor gap, but overall adequate.

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 100% with the 'period' parameter already described as a year in YYYY format. The description repeats the example but adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves an annual summary of operations exceeding €3,005 per counterparty (Modelo 347, Spain), specifying it returns per-party totals for clients and vendors. The title reinforces the threshold and annual nature, distinguishing it from other Modelo summaries.

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 implies use for Spanish annual operations reporting but does not explicitly compare to sibling Modelo summaries (e.g., 303, 130) or provide when-not-to-use guidance. 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.