Deudas y cuentas por cobrar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by explaining the behavioral semantics of the 'naturaleza' field (pasivo = debes / activo = te deben) and the 'cuotas pendientes' detail. No contradiction with 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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core resource and no filler. Every phrase adds meaning, including the nature direction explanation.

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 read-only list tool with one optional filter and rich annotations, the description supplies key domain context: types of debts, pending installments, and the nature semantics. Without an output schema, it doesn't enumerate return fields, but the low complexity and annotations make this sufficient.

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 a well-described estado parameter that has an enum and default behavior. The description adds no parameter-level information, so the schema carries the burden; 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource: 'Deudas y compromisos (créditos, leasing, tarjetas) y cuentas por cobrar' and adds specificity with 'con cuotas pendientes'. It distinguishes from siblings like list_facturas (invoices) and list_movimientos_banco (bank movements) by domain, and explains the nature field direction.

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 usage for debt and receivables queries but does not provide explicit when-to-use or alternatives. There is no exclusion like 'use list_facturas for invoices instead', so it lacks clear guidance for choosing among siblings.

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