sii_bhe_list_emitidas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output fields (folio, fecha, contraparte, honorario bruto, retenciones, total líquido, anulada), the scope (per person, monthly), and an important behavioral trait (does not require company RUT). This goes beyond a simple 'list' and sets expectations for data content.

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 extremely efficient: two sentences convey purpose, output fields, and a key distinction (person-level vs company-level). Every clause adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 moderate complexity (2 simple params, no output schema), the description adequately tells the agent what the tool returns and its scope. It doesn't describe error cases or pagination, but for a straightforward list with a defined field set, it is reasonably complete.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions ('Mes a consultar', 'Año a consultar'). The description adds context that the month is the issuance month, but this is already implied. No additional parameter-level detail is needed, so 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 it 'Lists electronic fee invoices issued by the authenticated person's RUT in a month' with a precise verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'emitidas' (issued) and explicitly noting it does not require SII_EMPRESA_RUT, which differentiates it from company-level tools.

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 provides clear context: it lists issued invoices for the authenticated person, and explicitly states when not to use it (no SII_EMPRESA_RUT needed). It doesn't name alternative tools but the sibling names (e.g., sii_bhe_list_recibidas) imply the counterpart, making usage intent clear.

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