Extraer Saldos de Bodegas

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it generates an .xlsx file and returns the first parsed rows. This is not conveyed by the annotations and helps the agent understand side effects and output format. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences. The first sentence captures the core purpose with a specific verb and resource, and the second explains output behavior. No redundant or filler content exists, and the key information is 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?

Given the complexity (14 parameters) and the existence of many similar sibling tools, the description is minimal. The schema fully documents parameters, and the description explains the core function and output. However, it lacks usage guidance and does not explain how it differs from sibling tools, which leaves a gap in contextual completeness for an agent deciding between alternatives.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add any parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, but the schema is sufficiently rich to compensate for the absence of parameter info in the description.

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 the tool extracts warehouse balances ('Extraer Saldos de Bodegas') and identifies it as the GETBOD function of SIIGO Pyme. It also mentions the output behavior (generates .xlsx and returns parsed first rows). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like siigo_getbodm or siigo_getinv, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool names. The title and description imply its use for extracting warehouse balances, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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