Liquidaciones de sueldo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context: the 'aprobadas' filter and the default period behavior when 'periodo' is omitted. It does not disclose return format or other details, but with annotations covering safety, this is adequate.

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?

Two concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides the key default behavior. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 (one optional parameter) and has strong annotations, so the description is nearly complete for invocation. It covers purpose and the main behavioral default. It does not describe the return structure, but with no output schema that is a minor gap for a simple list tool; overall it is sufficiently 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 describes 'periodo' as YYYY-MM and notes it uses a default value if omitted, yielding 100% coverage. The description adds specific meaning by stating the default is 'the last 3 months with settlements', which goes beyond the schema's generic 'default value' mention. This additional clarification elevates the parameter semantics beyond the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool as listing approved salary settlements ('Liquidaciones de sueldo aprobadas'), matching the tool name and title. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_facturas' and 'list_deudas' by the specific resource (liquidaciones) and the 'aprobadas' qualifier. The default-period behavior adds an additional distinctive detail.

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 that omitting 'periodo' returns the last 3 months with settlements, which guides usage for default behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or provide exclusions, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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