Documentos del RCV

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior in 'paginada (50 por página)' and the one-month scoping, but says nothing about result ordering, total page counts, or what happens if pagina exceeds the range.

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 that front-loads the core action and page size, then lists filter dimensions. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 7 parameters, 29% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is thin: it never indicates what fields a returned document contains, what tipo_doc integer codes mean, or how results are ordered across pages. For a filtered list tool with no output schema, that leaves the agent guessing at both inputs and returns.

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 only 29% (rut and periodo documented), so the description must compensate; it does partially by naming the filter dimensions lado, estado, tipo de documento and contraparte in natural language. However, tipo_doc's integer codes remain unexplained in both schema and description, and rut_contraparte's expected format is never stated.

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 ('Lista ... documentos del RCV') plus scope (one month, 50 per page) and the filter dimensions available. An agent can tell this is a paginated document listing rather than an aggregate or sync tool, though the description never explicitly differentiates it from siblings like iva_resumen or sincronizar.

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 mention of filters by lado, estado, tipo and contraparte implies how the tool is used to narrow results, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over the sibling summary/sync tools or what to do when results span multiple pages. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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