es__get_compliance_status

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

With no annotations, the description itself must carry behavioral disclosure; 'Devuelve' signals a read-only query and the caveat about RD-ley 15/2025 warns that output is subject to future legal changes. It does not address side effects, authentication, or data freshness, but for a status lookup this is a reasonable minimum.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the core return value is front-loaded and the legal caveat adds relevant context without redundancy.

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?

The description is complete enough for a basic read-only lookup thanks to full schema coverage and an output schema, but the ambiguous 'sistema operativo' and lack of usage context leave meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to call the tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents entity_type, province_code, enrolled_in_sii, and annual_turnover_eur. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond 'perfil de empresa', so it stays at the baseline.

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 states a concrete verb ('Devuelve') and a resource (compliance deadlines and 'sistema operativo') for a company profile, which broadly separates it from the invoicing/SII/Verifactu siblings. However, 'sistema operativo' is ambiguous in a tax-compliance context and could be read literally as 'operating system', so the exact purpose is not fully clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool instead of the many sibling tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The only context is 'para un perfil de empresa' and the RD-ley 15/2025 reference, which implies a regulatory-compliance use case but does not help an agent select among alternatives.

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