get_numeration_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output content (remaining folio counts, active/exhausted/expired ranges) and implies a read-only query, but does not address authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. This is adequate but lacks depth on operational behavior.

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 only two sentences: the first states the core purpose and content, the second provides usage scenarios. It is front-loaded with the essential information and contains no 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 has no params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and when to use it. It could add example output formats or clarify data source, but for a zero-parameter read-only summary it is 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context about what the summary contains, which helps an agent understand the tool's output even without parameters.

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 provides a summary of available folios (CAF) by DTE type, showing remaining counts and range states. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_last_folio (single last folio) and get_dte_balance (balance), giving the agent a precise idea of what to expect.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: when a client asks how many folios remain, availability for boletas/facturas, or need to request more from SII. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the provided use cases are clear and actionable.

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