Movimientos bancarios (cartolas)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond these: results are paginated ('Paginado') and include specific fields (category, reconciliation status). It also notes the source is previously loaded bank statements, which clarifies data provenance. 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, no filler. It front-loads the core purpose (bank movements) and adds high-value specifics (category, reconciliation status, pagination). 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential return contents and pagination behavior. It could be considered complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, especially with rich annotations and full schema coverage.

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%: both `page` and `periodo` have descriptions in the schema. The main description adds minimal param-related semantics beyond the word 'Paginado', which is already reflected in the `page` schema. With complete schema coverage and no enums or required params, the baseline 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 states the tool lists bank movements from loaded bank statements, including category and reconciliation status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_facturas or get_f29, as it specifically targets bank cartolas. The verb is implied by 'Movimientos de' and reinforced by the tool name, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where other sibling tools (e.g., list_facturas, get_flujo_caja) would be more appropriate. The intended use is only implied by the tool's purpose.

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