Hallazgos de conciliación

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing conditional yield ('si se sincronizaron las boletas de honorarios…') and the default scope of all months with data, but it says nothing about volume, pagination, or whether findings are empty when reconciliation is clean.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that leads with the core term and then enumerates finding types; nothing is redundant. The nested parenthetical with the conditional honorarios clause makes it dense and slightly harder to parse than it needs to be.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what a 'hallazgo' looks like (fields, counts, severity levels) and does not. It is adequate for deciding whether to call the tool, but thin for interpreting results or understanding the meaning of the severity filter.

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 75%, just below the high-coverage baseline, and the description only echoes the desde/hasta semantics already documented in the schema. The 'severidad' parameter has no description in the schema and is never mentioned in the description, so the meaning of info/advertencia/critico is left entirely unstated.

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?

Names the specific resource (hallazgos de conciliación de IVA) and enumerates the concrete finding types it returns — descuadres, F29 faltantes, facturas por reclamar, cambios posteriores al F29, retención de honorarios vs código 151. That is far more specific than a sibling like iva_resumen, though it never says explicitly whether it lists, computes, or returns findings, and it doesn't name the sibling contrast outright.

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 trailing phrase 'de todos los meses con datos, o de un rango' implies the default scope and when to pass a period range, which is useful usage signal. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-instead-of guidance versus iva_resumen or f29_historial, and no prerequisites (e.g. that the RUT must already be synchronized).

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