Get Modelo 425 Summary (IGIC Annual Recap)

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the return fields (IGIC collected, deductible, net payable, filing status) and the bilingual example. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise, containing two sentences in English followed by the same in Spanish. It front-loads the key information (Get Modelo 425 summary) and includes an example. The bilingual repetition is slightly redundant but acceptable for a global context.

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 has only one parameter (year), no output schema, and full annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, provides an example, and includes multilingual support. No gaps are present.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a description for the 'year' parameter. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., format restrictions, defaults). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gets the IGIC Modelo 425 summary, an annual IGIC recap for Canary Islands businesses. It lists the specific fields returned (aggregated IGIC collected, deductible IGIC, net payable, filing status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like frihet_modelo_200_summary and frihet_modelo_202_summary, which are different tax forms.

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 the tool is for retrieving the annual IGIC summary for a given year. The context of sibling tax form tools (e.g., modelo_200, modelo_202) makes the use case clear: use this for Modelo 425. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, which would elevate it to a 5.

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