sii_bhe_resumen

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It details the returned fields and scope, but does not mention authentication prerequisites (beyond the implied authenticated RUT), error handling, or whether the operation is read-only. This provides moderate transparency.

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 three sentences: it states the purpose, enumerates the output data, and clarifies the scope. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it both concise and 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the aggregate content per month and the dependency on the authenticated person. It lacks details on response format or edge cases (e.g., months with no activity), but this is a minor gap for a summary 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?

The sole parameter 'anio' is fully described in the schema ('Año tributario a consultar'), covering 100% of parameter documentation. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable since the schema is sufficient.

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 this tool provides an annual summary of electronic fee receipts (boletas de honorarios) for the authenticated person RUT, listing specific aggregated data per month. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 notes that the tool does not require SII_EMPRESA_RUT and is tied to the person rather than the company, which helps select it for personal RUT queries. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to sibling tools like sii_bhe_list_emitidas, so alternatives are implied rather than named.

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