Panorama local del SII

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-open-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context by stating it never reaches the SII and only reads stored data, plus the conditional availability of propuesta F29, boletas and F22 ('si se sincronizaron'). It doesn't say what is returned when nothing is stored locally, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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 is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the payload list and then the two behavioral constraints in a short second sentence. The enumeration is dense but every item is informative; only the long single sentence testing readability keeps it from a 5.

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 does the necessary work of enumerating what comes back (monthly amounts, RCV coverage, F29, propuesta F29, boletas, F22 by tax year, account data) and flags which parts are conditional. It could still say more about the shape/aggregation of 'montos' and the empty-state behavior.

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?

The single parameter has 100% schema coverage with a concrete example format (22.222.222-2), so the schema carries the burden. The description adds only that the RUT scopes the whole panorama; no extra syntax or normalization guidance beyond the schema.

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 specific verb ('Muestra') and a precisely scoped resource: an all-months local panorama for a RUT, with the exact contents enumerated (RCV compras/ventas, F29, propuesta F29, boletas, F22, datos de cuenta). It also explicitly contrasts with period-scoped and sync siblings ('No requiere un período y no descarga datos del SII'), so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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 clear usage context: this is the cross-period overview and requires no period argument, and it is strictly a local read rather than a download. It doesn't name the alternative to call when the user needs fresh SII data (e.g. sincronizar / perfil_sincronizar), leaving that inference to the reader.

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