sii_oficios_por_anio

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the payload of each item (resumen oficial y referencia normativa) and the series grouping, but stays silent on volume, pagination or whether the list is exhaustive for the year.

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 that names the verb and resource first, then layers scope, grouping and returned fields without a wasted clause. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 simple one-parameter listing tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it says what it lists, the year scope, the series grouping and the fields returned. The only gap is not indicating expected result volume or pagination for a potentially large annual corpus.

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% and the single 'anio' parameter is already documented with its default (año en curso). The description reinforces the year scope and adds the series categories (Renta, IVA, Otras normas), which is context but not parameter semantics since series is not an input. 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?

States a specific verb (Lista) and resource (jurisprudencia administrativa del SII: oficios y pronunciamientos del Director), plus scope (por año) and structure (por serie: Renta, IVA, Otras normas). It is clearly a listing-by-year tool, distinguishable from search-oriented siblings like sii_buscar_resoluciones_y_oficios, though it never names an alternative to sharpen the contrast.

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?

Usage is implied by 'de un año, por serie' – an agent can infer this is for retrieving a full year's administrative jurisprudence grouped by series rather than targeted search. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no prerequisites, and no routing to sibling tools such as sii_buscar_resoluciones_y_oficios or sii_descargar_oficio.

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