Sincronizar con el SII

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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: it is strictly read-only against the SII (never submits or modifies anything there, consistent with readOnlyHint=false only because it writes to the local DB), explains what each optional surface adds (propuesta = proposed credit/remainder/withholding without debit or total payable; bhe = honorarios receipts crossed with F29 code 151), and discloses session-failure behavior and a security rule (never ask for the password 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 is front-loaded in the first sentence and every sentence carries information. It is a single dense run-on paragraph with stacked parentheticals, which makes it harder to scan than a short bulleted structure would.

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?

For a 4-parameter sync tool with no output schema, it covers scope, defaults, optional surfaces, batching strategy and failure handling. It does not describe what the response contains per surface (counts, errors, partial results), which an agent may want before calling, though the response itself reportedly explains the auth path.

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?

With 75% schema coverage, the schema already documents rut, desde and hasta. The description adds real meaning for superficies — the four accepted values, their semantics and which are on by default — plus the effective 120-month cap on the desde/hasta range, which the schema does not express.

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?

Specific verb+resource: pulls RCV (purchases and sales) and F29 from the SII portal for a month range and stores them locally. It explicitly contrasts itself with renta_sincronizar (F22) and perfil_sincronizar (profile/authorized companies), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without reading any 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?

States default behavior (rcv and f29 by default; propuesta and bhe optional and not included by default), when to use the sibling tools instead (renta_sincronizar for F22, perfil_sincronizar for profile), and operational guidance: max 120 months per call, use 12-month batches for long history to avoid client timeouts.

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