Extraer Historico de novedades

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: it generates a .xlsx file and returns only the first parsed rows. This is useful context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, which might misleadingly suggest no side effects. It does not contradict annotations. However, it could further clarify that the file is created on the server and whether it persists, but the description adds meaningful insight.

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, front-loaded with the verb and object ('Extraer Historico de novedades'), followed by a concise explanation of the output. No wasted words, and it's immediately scannable. Perfectly concise for its purpose.

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 tool with 20 parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential context: it generates a file and returns a preview. Combined with the schema's detailed parameter descriptions, an agent has enough to invoke the tool. It could mention the file's destination or the meaning of the returned rows, but the current description plus schema is largely sufficient.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema itself carries the full burden of parameter semantics. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond clarifying the overall purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness; the description doesn't need to repeat parameter information.

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's action ('Extraer Historico de novedades') and explicitly identifies the SIIGO Pyme function (GETHN). It also explains the output behavior (generating an .xlsx and returning parsed first rows). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like siigo_getnov, the specific function reference distinguishes it. A 4 is warranted because the purpose is clear and 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any preconditions, exclusions, or complementary tools (e.g., siigo_list_companies or siigo_set_credentials). The user is left to infer when to use GETHN based on the name and function. This is a clear gap.

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