Importar Actividades economicas (ICA)

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

Beyond the annotations (which indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnly=false), the description adds useful behavioral context: the import result is placed in the TEMP folder of the corresponding company. This is not present in the annotations or schema. It does not elaborate on side effects, but the annotation covers the destructive nature. No contradiction with 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every sentence adds value. It names the internal function and mentions the output location without any fluff.

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?

With no output schema and a complex 8-parameter import operation, the description gives only a high-level explanation. It mentions the result location but does not describe expected return values, error behavior, or how to verify success. The schema enriches parameter details, but the overall operational picture is incomplete.

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 provides 100% coverage for all 8 parameters, each with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already contains. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter semantics completely.

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 action ('Importar'), the resource ('Actividades economicas (ICA)'), and the mechanism (function PUSHICA). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like siigo_getica (which reads ICA) and other push tools for different data types. The verb 'importa' is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage for importing ICA data from an .xlsx file, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. It does not reference sibling tools such as siigo_getica, so guidance is only implicit.

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