Historial del F29

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that honorarios retention (código 151) is included only when that month's received honorarios boletas were synchronized, which the annotations do not convey.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the per-month scope and then lists the returned fields. It is efficient for the information conveyed, though the conditional clause makes it slightly heavy to parse.

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?

With no output schema, the description does a reasonable job explaining returned values, including the conditional honorarios retention. However, it omits what happens for months where no F29 is present and does not distinguish the tool from f29_releer, leaving gaps for correct tool selection.

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 description coverage is 100%, so rut and the AAAA-MM period formats are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no further meaning about how desde/hasta bounds are treated or whether the range is inclusive, so 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 makes clear that this retrieves a per-month F29 history for a date range, listing presentation status, folio, debit/credit amounts and total payable. It is specific about the returned data but does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby tools such as f29_releer.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like f29_releer or iva_resumen. The only implied usage is the presence of required rut/desde/hasta parameters, which is not the same as usage guidance.

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