Resumen de IVA del mes

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 genuinely useful context beyond that: operations run against a local copy whose staleness must be verified, with a sync step as remedy. It stops short of describing output shape or failure behavior when F29 is missing for the period.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the comparison and the reviewed artifacts before the local-data caveat. Slightly dense enumeration of four checks in one clause, but nothing is wasted.

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 should signal what comes back; 'entrega los hallazgos de un mes' plus the enumerated checks give a reasonable sense of the result. Missing is what happens when the period has no F29 or no RCV documents, which matters for a reconciliation tool.

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%, so rut and periodo are already documented with format and pattern. The description only implies a single month is analyzed ('de un mes') and adds no syntax, range or edge-case guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States specific verbs (compara, revisa, entrega) and concrete resources (débito/crédito del RCV, F29 presentado, remanente, documentos pendientes, plazos). An agent can see this is a monthly VAT reconciliation summary, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with iva_hallazgos, which the phrase 'entrega los hallazgos' partly overlaps.

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?

Gives an actionable precondition: it reads only the local base, so check 'frescura' and run the sync (sincronizar) when data is stale. It does not state when to prefer this over iva_hallazgos or renta_resumen, so the sibling routing is only partially covered.

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