Get Modelo 418 Summary (IGIC Monthly Large Enterprises)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool returns specific tax fields, which is useful context but does not reveal further behavioral traits like rate limits or prerequisites. Given the robust annotations, the description provides adequate supplementary detail.

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 bilingual, which likely aids users in the Canary Islands context. It front-loads the English version and repeats in Spanish. While somewhat verbose, each sentence adds value. It could be shorter, but the structure is clear and not excessively long relative to the information conveyed.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explicitly lists the returned fields (collected, deductible, net due, carryover), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the output. With only one parameter and a straightforward return, the description is fully complete for the tool's low complexity.

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 schema covers the single parameter (period) 100% with format and default. The description adds an example (period='2026-04') which is helpful but not essential. Since schema does the heavy lifting, baseline 3 is appropriate; the example provides marginal additional value.

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 a summary of IGIC Modelo 418, a monthly tax return for large enterprises in the Canary Islands. It lists the specific fields returned (collected, deductible, net due, carryover), making the purpose highly specific and distinguishable from siblings like other modelo summaries.

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 indicates when this tool is applicable: when annual turnover exceeds the grandes empresas threshold. While it doesn't explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternative tools, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide to use it over other modelos.

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