Extraer Actividades economicas (ICA)

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

The annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral context by stating it generates an .xlsx file and returns its first parsed rows, which is not encoded in the annotations. This gives the agent a clearer picture of side effects and return behavior, though it does not cover details like error handling or file path placement (which are partially in parameter descriptions).

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 sentences—with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every word adds value, and it avoids redundancy with 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?

Given the rich schema and clear annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the output (xlsx and parsed preview) which is helpful since there is no output schema. However, it does not describe the exact structure of the returned rows or any preprocessing behavior, which could be useful but is not critical given the schema coverage.

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?

All 11 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema already provides comprehensive parameter semantics. The tool description itself does not elaborate on parameter meanings beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not add extra value.

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 Economic Activities (ICA) via the GETICA function of SIIGO Pyme. It also specifies the output behavior (generates an .xlsx and returns parsed rows), providing a specific verb and resource. The mention of the internal function name helps distinguish it from sibling tools such as siigo_getact or siigo_getext.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is evident from the title and phrasing, there is no direct guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be preferred. Usage is only implied by the function name and context.

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