Get Modelo 347 Summary (Operations >€3,005 Annual Recap)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful context by specifying that the summary is per counterparty, lists both clients and vendors, and enforces the €3,005 threshold. It also provides a concrete example for the period parameter. This goes beyond the safety profile without contradicting 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 exceptionally concise: a single English sentence followed by a Spanish equivalent, plus an example. Every word contributes meaning. No fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and result.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the output (per-party totals for clients and vendors above threshold) and the threshold condition. A minor gap is not addressing what happens if no parties exceed the threshold (e.g., empty list), but given the straightforward nature, this is a minor omission.

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 one parameter (period) with full description and format. The description adds an explicit example (period='2025') and repeats the format guidance, but does not introduce new parameter semantics beyond what the schema offers. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 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's purpose: retrieving the annual informative summary of operations exceeding €3,005 per counterparty (Modelo 347). It specifies the verb 'get', the resource (annual summary), and the unique threshold and country context, distinguishing it clearly from similar modelo summary tools like get_modelo_130_summary.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as other modelo summaries. It lacks information about prerequisites, typical usage scenarios, or when not to use it. While the tool's purpose is clear, the user is not helped to select it over siblings.

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