Plazos próximos

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine domain context — the 8-day reclaim window and the two data sources — but says nothing about return shape, ordering, or scope of the lookahead window.

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?

A single dense sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the parenthetical '(8 días)' is the only piece of framing an agent gets about the window semantics.

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 and an undocumented 'dias' parameter, the description should at minimum describe what the response contains (a list of deadlines keyed by type) and how 'dias' bounds it. It omits both, so an agent can call it but cannot reason about its results.

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 only 50%: 'rut' is documented in the schema, but 'dias' has no description anywhere and the tool description never mentions it, leaving the lookahead window's meaning entirely undefined. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 resource precisely ('Vencimientos próximos') and enumerates the two things it aggregates: F29 filings pending and received invoices nearing the 8-day claim deadline. This differentiates it from siblings like f29_historial or rcv_documentos, though it never explicitly names or contrasts those alternatives.

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 'próximos' framing implies the usage context (checking what's due soon), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to alternatives such as f29_releer for a single F29. The agent must infer the routing decision.

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