Extraer Movimiento de Seriales

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 valuable side-effect context: it generates an .xlsx file and returns its parsed first rows. This goes beyond the annotations by telling the agent that a file artifact is created, though it does not detail file cleanup or size limits.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and output behavior. Every word earns its place, and it avoids unnecessary repetition of schema details.

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's high complexity (20 parameters, 3 required, no output schema), the description is minimal but does state the key output behavior. It does not offer a high-level summary of filtering capabilities or response structure, leaving the agent to infer these from the schema alone. This is adequate but not fully complete.

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 covers 100% of the 20 parameters with detailed descriptions, examples, and defaults, so the description doesn't need to add parameter-level meaning. The description itself adds no extra parameter semantics, but the schema fully compensates, matching the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Extraer') and resource ('Movimiento de Seriales') and names the exact SIIGO function GETMSRL. It also clarifies the output behavior (generates .xlsx and returns parsed rows), making it distinct from related serial-report siblings like siigo_getsrl or siigo_getbsrl.

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 when-not-to-use it or point to sibling tools for similar operations, so the agent has no explicit usage context.

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