sii_actos_regionales

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly signals a read-only listing/search operation and discloses the output contents (number, date, subject, PDF link). However, it does not mention defaults, pagination, or any limitations, leaving some behavioral aspects to the schema.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose, scope, and expected output fields without any redundant words. It earns its place fully and is easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 moderately simple search tool with all parameters documented in the schema, the description covers the essential return values and overall behavior. It does not mention output format or edge cases, but no output schema exists and the core information needed for correct invocation is present.

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 schema already documents all four parameters and their defaults. The description adds useful context by naming the result fields and the yearly scope, but it does not add deeper meaning for anio, query, limite, or direccion beyond what the schema provides. 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 uses the specific verb 'Lista o busca' and clearly identifies the resource: acts and resolutions published by SII regional directorates and units, organized by year. It also lists the returned fields (number, date, subject, PDF link). The 'regionales y unidades' scope distinguishes it from sibling search tools like sii_buscar_resoluciones_y_oficios.

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 that this tool is for listing or searching regional SII acts/resolutions by year, and the schema notes that omitting query lists results for the year. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as sii_oficios_por_anio or sii_descargar_oficio, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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