Extraer Movimiento Contable

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it generates an .xlsx file, returns the first parsed rows, and notes that the password is never returned in responses. It also discloses basic-model limitations, which helps set expectations beyond the 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 compact and front-loaded: first sentence names the action, second describes the output, and third lists limitations. However, the repeated 'Modelo basico:' prefix is slightly redundant and could be condensed into a single sentence without losing clarity.

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 21 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview and key limitations but does not explain return structure, pagination, or error behavior. It mentions returning 'first rows' but not the shape of the data, leaving some gap for such a complex tool.

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 input schema already documents all 21 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only reinforces the basic-model concept already present in the modeloBasico parameter description.

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 accounting movement (GETMOV) and generates an .xlsx with parsed rows. It is specific about the resource and deliverable, but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like siigo_getmvt, relying instead on the GETMOV name and basic-model limitations for differentiation.

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 only implies when to use this tool: it lists limitations (no multiple payment methods, no fixed assets, etc.), suggesting it is only suitable for basic scenarios. It does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or mention any alternative tool, so guidance is present but implicit.

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