Extraer Definicion cuentas para multiples retenciones

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that the tool generates an .xlsx file and returns parsed rows. It also adds a safety note in the schema about the 'clave' parameter never being returned. These details are valuable, though it does not cover edge cases like file overwriting or error behavior.

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 concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and includes the key output behavior. No wasted words.

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 provides the essential high-level behavior (extract, generate file, return rows) and relies on the schema for parameter details. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly, though it could mention the return format more explicitly.

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% description coverage for all 11 parameters, so the tool description does not need to repeat parameter meanings. The main description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's thoroughness.

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 ('Definicion cuentas para multiples retenciones'), clearly tying it to the GETMUL function. It also mentions the unique behavior of generating an .xlsx and returning parsed rows, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like siigo_getcta (single account) or siigo_pushmul (push operation).

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 phrase 'para multiples retenciones' provides clear context for when this tool should be used, implying it is the appropriate choice for multiple withholding account definitions. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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