Listar funciones de ExcelSIIGO

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks this as safe/read-only. The description adds context by stating the exact count (47 functions) and that it maps CLI functions to MCP tool names, which is useful beyond the annotation. It does not mention filtering behavior, but the simple nature of the tool and annotation coverage make this adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a cross-reference to a sibling tool. 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 simple list tool with one optional filter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns (catalog of functions with MCP names) and points to describe_function for deeper detail. It is self-contained for the tool's simplicity.

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% for the single optional parameter 'grupo', which is documented with examples in the schema. The description adds no extra detail about the parameter, so it relies on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 this tool lists a catalog of the 47 CLI functions with their equivalent MCP tool names, using a specific verb ('Catalogo') and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like siigo_list_companies and explicitly references siigo_describe_function for parameter details.

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 explicitly directs users to siigo_describe_function for viewing parameters of a specific function, indicating when to use this tool (to browse the catalog) versus when to use an alternative. This is clear when/when-not guidance.

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