Extraer informacion de centros de costo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it generates an .xlsx file (a side effect) and returns already-parsed preview rows. This goes beyond the annotation-provided safety profile and clarifies the tool's observable behavior, though it does not detail file path defaults or permissions.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and supplemented by one critical behavioral note. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 has 13 parameters and no output schema, the description provides only a high-level overview: it generates an xlsx and returns its first parsed rows. It does not mention that the number of rows is controlled by 'filasPreview', nor does it describe the shape of the parsed rows or the file generation behavior (defaults, path handling). This is adequate but leaves the agent with gaps that must be filled by the schema or inference.

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 the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions that the tool generates an .xlsx and returns parsed rows, which does not amplify any parameter details. The schema alone carries the parameter semantics.

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 a specific verb ('Extraer') and resource ('centros de costo'), and references the underlying SIIGO GETCOS function, distinguishing it from sibling get tools like siigo_getcta or siigo_getmov. It also adds a key behavioral detail (generates .xlsx and returns parsed rows), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for extracting cost center information but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or sibling tools, so the agent must infer the domain from the resource name. This meets the minimum for 'implied usage' but lacks clear guidance.

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