Sincronizar la renta (F22)

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true) the description discloses concrete traits: it reads only from the SII and stores nothing sensitive (no names, address, account, bank), preserves previously stored data when the SII returns empty, caps the range at 10 years, and explains the no-session recovery path without asking for credentials in chat.

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?

Purpose and range limit are front-loaded, and every clause carries operational content. It is a single dense paragraph of roughly 150 words, which is long but justified by the number of distinct data classes it retrieves.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly, enumerating declarations, conclusions, folio codes with glosas, observations, events, boleta-level detail with amounts and withholdings, and DJ informants with their months, amounts and SII observations. Error/degradation behavior is also covered.

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 the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning on top by clarifying the año tributario convention (commercial year + 1) and imposing a 10-year maximum span across desde/hasta, which the schema does not state.

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?

The description names a specific verb chain (fetch F22 from SII and persist it locally) plus the exact resource set: annual declarations, boletas de honorarios, and DJ filings by third parties. It implicitly distinguishes itself from read-only siblings like renta_resumen by stressing that it writes to the local database, but it never names an alternative tool.

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?

It gives useful context conditions (using the next tax year to see current-year boletas without an F22, max 10 years per call, session-required path), but it never says when to prefer renta_resumen or sii_panorama over a sync, nor any when-not guidance.

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