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

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

Annotations confirm read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds context about the €3,005 threshold and return structure, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination, data freshness, or authorization requirements. It does not contradict 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?

The description is short (two sentences) but includes redundancy by repeating the same info in English and Spanish. It is front-loaded with the key purpose. Could be more concise by removing the Spanish duplicate.

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?

Given the output schema exists (indicated true), the description adequately explains the return content (per-party totals for clients/vendors above threshold). For a simple read-only query with one parameter, this is complete.

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 sole parameter 'period' has 100% schema coverage with a clear description. The description repeats the year format ('YYYY') but adds no further semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 annual Modelo 347 summary for operations exceeding €3,005 per counterparty, specifying it returns per-party totals for clients and vendors. The title reinforces the threshold and recap nature, distinguishing it from other modelo summary tools.

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 provides the use case (annual summary above threshold) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus other modelo summary tools (e.g., modelo_200, modelo_303). Usage is implied by the specific regulation, but no alternatives or when-not-to-use are mentioned.

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