Sincronizar la cuenta del SII

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that SII-reported companies overwrite manually entered `representa` data, that only RUT, razón social, privileges and deauthorization date are stored, and that emails/phones/addresses are deliberately not stored. It also covers auth behavior and the read-only nature of the upstream SII call, which reconciles with readOnlyHint=false (the write happens locally) and idempotentHint=true.

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 core behavior (what is fetched and what is replaced) is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each following clause carries distinct behavioral information. It is dense and slightly run-on, with the F29 day-20/day-12 rule sitting a bit tangentially, but no sentence 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 still conveys what gets persisted, what gets overwritten, and what the no-session response looks like. It does not describe the success response shape, which is the only notable gap for a sync tool of this complexity.

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?

There is only one parameter and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage with an example format (22.222.222-2). The description adds nothing about the RUT beyond what the schema provides, 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 a concrete verb and resource: it pulls the tax profile from SII (F29 authorization, régimen, segmento) plus the list of companies the taxpayer may query, and replaces the `representa` field. This is far more specific than the title, but it never names its siblings (perfiles_listar, renta_sincronizar, sincronizar), leaving the agent to infer when this differs from the other sync tools.

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 explicit ordering rule — 'sincroniza la cuenta antes de revisar plazos' — and explains the fallback path when there is no session (the response points to the «Abrir mi-sii-mcp.cmd» page, never ask for the password in chat). It does not state when to use a sibling instead, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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