sii_convenios_internacionales

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. 'Consulta' clearly signals a read/search operation rather than mutation, which is useful, and the content scope is explicit. However, it does not describe return behavior, pagination, output format, or any practical limitations, so full transparency is not achieved.

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?

One focused, front-loaded sentence states the verb, resource, and filter dimensions without filler. The parenthetical list of treaty types is informative and earns its place by disambiguating the tool's scope.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the core action and scope. However, with no output schema and no behavioral details about what the response contains, an agent is left guessing whether the tool returns treaty summaries, links, full texts, or metadata.

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 already documents the single optional parameter with 100% coverage, including that omitting it lists all treaties. The description's 'por país, materia o documento relacionado' confirms the parameter's semantics but adds no new information beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Consulta') and a specific resource ('convenios tributarios internacionales del SII'), then enumerates the treaty types covered: doble imposición, intercambio de información, transporte internacional y convención multilateral. This clearly separates it from sibling SII tools focused on circulares, resoluciones, oficios, or jurisprudencia.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to consult SII international tax treaties by country, subject, or related document. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the resource is distinct enough among siblings that the intended use is evident.

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