Extraer Saldos de Bodegas para Clasificaciones

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

The description discloses that the tool generates a .xlsx file and returns its first rows parsed, adding context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It does not mention other side effects like file persistence details or credential needs, but annotations already cover the safety profile. No contradiction with 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 a single sentence that combines the purpose, the underlying function, and the output format. No wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a tool with a well-documented schema.

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 tool's complexity (14 params, no output schema), the description gives a useful high-level summary but lacks specifics about the return format beyond 'primeras filas ya parseadas'. It does not reference related tools or prerequisites, but the schema and annotations cover parameter details and safety. The missing output schema means the description could have clarified the preview structure more, making it adequate but not complete.

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 provides detailed descriptions for all 14 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage. It does not compensate for any schema gaps because there are none.

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 starts with a specific verb-resource phrase 'Extraer Saldos de Bodegas para Clasificaciones' and identifies the underlying SIIGO function (GETBOP). It clearly states the output behavior (generates .xlsx and returns parsed preview rows). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like siigo_getbod, but the 'para Clasificaciones' qualifier adds specificity beyond a generic balance extraction.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does; there is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or preferred alternatives. Given the large number of sibling get* tools, explicit usage direction would be valuable.

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