Descargar documentos de una empresa (ZIP ordenado)

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

Even with annotations readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it returns a base64 ZIP with logical directory and normalized filenames including manifest.json, imposes specific limits (max 3 EEFF periods, 2 years for other sections, max_documentos, max_mb), and states that signed tokens are handled server-side. This goes well beyond the annotations to set expectations about response format and constraints.

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 dense but every sentence contributes value: it states the action and output, explains the limits and parameter semantics, and notes token handling. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids unnecessary filler.

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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, multiple document types) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential return format, limits, and parameter details. It does not mention error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., validity of the company), but the output schema and annotations cover some of these aspects, making it reasonably 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 schema has only 10% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the periodos format (AAAAMM, max 3), the default behavior of using the most recent periods, the 2-year limit for other sections, and references max_documentos and max_mb. However, it does not clarify other parameters like rut, tipo, norma, secciones, or incluir_zip in detail, leaving some gaps.

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 downloads a company's documents across multiple sections (EEFF, hechos, sanciones, resoluciones, memoria) in a date range and returns them as a base64 ZIP with a logical structure. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle individual document types or single downloads.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (batch downloading multiple document categories in one call) and details the per-call limits. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the context is sufficient to infer it is for batch/package downloads.

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