Get Modelo 415 Summary (IGIC Annual Operations >€3,005)

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the return content (counterparty list, operation totals, filing deadline) and providing an example. No contradictions.

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?

The description is succinct, with the key information in the first sentence. The bilingual format (English and Spanish) is efficient for the target audience. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers return content and provides an example. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though no details on data limits or pagination are needed.

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% and the schema description adequately explains the 'year' parameter (tax year, defaults to previous year). The description reinforces this with an example ('year='2025''), adding minimal new meaning.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves the IGIC Modelo 415 summary, specifying it is an annual declaration for operations exceeding €3,005. It explicitly identifies it as the Canary Islands equivalent of Modelo 347, distinguishing it from other model summary tools.

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 description implies usage for Canary Islands IGIC declarations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative model summary tools (e.g., for other regions or taxes). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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