es__query_sii_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions using SOAP services but does not state that the operation is read-only, what happens on error, authentication requirements, or response format. Key behavioral details are missing, which could lead to incorrect invocation.

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 a single, concise sentence in Spanish that front-loads the main action. It is efficient with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) without losing conciseness.

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 complexity (7 parameters, SOAP interaction, optional filters) and lack of output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It covers core filtering but omits details on response structure, error scenarios, and prerequisite steps, which are important for correct use.

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% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds minor value by summarizing filtering (e.g., 'opcionalmente por NIF del emisor y numero de factura') but does not provide new meaning beyond the schema. 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's purpose: consulting invoice status in SII using specific SOAP services. It specifies the filtering criteria (fiscal year, period, optional NIF and invoice number). The name and description align, and it differentiates from siblings like es__submit_sii_batch or es__generate_facturae_xml by focusing on querying status.

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 explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for querying invoice status, but there is no guidance on when not to use it (e.g., if submission is needed) or reference to sibling tools. The context is implied but not clarified.

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