es__query_sii_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the safety/behavior burden. It does convey that this is a read-only query ('Consulta') and that it invokes a SOAP envelope, which adds useful context. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, external AEAT communication, error behavior, or side effects.

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 first sentence is a strong front-loaded purpose, but the 'ES-LC-2: reemplaza el REST GET...' line is an internal/legacy note that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool. The filtering sentence is useful, but the ticket reference keeps this from being fully concise.

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?

With a complete input schema and an output schema present, the description does not need to spell out return values or parameter formats. It names the SOAP service and the filter dimensions. It is adequate for a read-only query tool, though it would benefit from a note about the record_type/emisor_nif relationship.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description's filter line restates a subset of parameters (ejercicio, periodo, NIF emisor, numero factura) but adds no comparison to the schema. It also omits the schema's nuance that emisor_nif is only for received.

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 opens with a concrete verb ('Consulta') and a specific resource ('estado de facturas en el SII'), and names the exact SOAP operation. This is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like es__query_verifactu_status and es__get_face_invoice_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 implies the tool is for querying SII invoice status but does not state when to prefer it over the sibling query/status tools, nor mention any exclusions. The 'ES-LC-2' note is a developer ticket reference, not usage guidance for an agent.

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