Extraer Formulacion de Productos (kits)

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that the tool generates an .xlsx file and returns its first rows already parsed. This is meaningful behavioral context: it creates a file artifact and provides a parsed preview. The description does not contradict annotations; file creation is an output, not a modification of source data.

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 concise sentence fragments. It front-loads the core purpose first, then adds the output behavior. There is no redundancy or filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a clear high-level picture of what it does and what it returns. It explains the file generation and parsing behavior, which is crucial for an agent to understand the tool's side effects. Combined with the rich annotated schema, this is sufficiently complete, though it could have mentioned that the output is a preview of the generated file (already implied) or any dependencies on SIIGO configuration.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptive comments for all 11 parameters, including defaults, formats, and enums. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it does not improve on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Extraer'), a specific resource ('Formulacion de Productos (kits)') and references the SIIGO function (GETKIT). It clearly differentiates this extraction tool from siblings like siigo_pushkit (which pushes data) and siigo_read_xlsx (generic xlsx reader). The phrase 'Genera un archivo .xlsx y devuelve sus primeras filas ya parseadas' adds concrete output behavior.

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 clearly implies this tool is for extracting kit formulations in SIIGO Pyme and returning a preview, which provides context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., use siigo_pushkit for writing, or siigo_read_xlsx if you already have the file). The usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with sibling tools.

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