sii_actos_regionales

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that each result carries número, fecha, materia and a PDF link, which is useful context. It does not mention pagination limits or rate behavior, so it adds moderate rather than rich value.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the returned fields are packed efficiently. It could be marginally tighter but nothing is wasted.

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 annotations present, no output schema, and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose and return fields adequately. It leaves gaps around how listing differs from searching and how pagination/limite behaves, which matters for a 4-parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (anio, query, limite, direccion) are already documented in the schema. The description only loosely gestures at 'por año', adding nothing the schema doesn't already say. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb pair ('Lista o busca') and a precise resource (actos y resoluciones de direcciones regionales y unidades del SII), plus the fields returned. It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with regional-sounding siblings like sii_buscar_resoluciones_y_oficios or sii_oficios_por_anio.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. The description implies it is used to list/search regional acts by year, but never states when to prefer this over sii_oficios_por_anio or sii_search_circulares. The agent must infer selection from the resource name alone.

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