Formulario 22 (renta anual)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'resultado a pagar o devolución' which hints at the return value, but does not disclose any further behavioral traits such as default year behavior, response structure, or limitations. It adds little beyond 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 a single, focused sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the tool's core purpose and outcome, making it highly concise and efficient.

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 tool is simple (1 optional parameter, read-only annotations), but there is no output schema to clarify return values. The description vaguely mentions 'resultado a pagar o devolución' but omits specifics like whether the result is a numeric value, a breakdown, or a PDF, and does not address sibling differentiation. It is adequate for basic invocation but has clear gaps.

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% and the only parameter 'anio' is clearly described with range and default behavior. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, but the schema does the heavy lifting, so a baseline score of 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?

The description clearly specifies the resource 'Formulario 22' and the output 'resultado a pagar o devolución' (amount to pay or refund). It distinguishes from sibling F29 by name and tax form type, though it lacks an explicit action verb like 'retrieve' or 'get'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like ordis_get_f29 (another tax form) and ordis_get_empresa, the description should clarify that F22 is for annual income tax returns, but it does not, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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