LEER PRIMERO: como usar SIIGO Pyme

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with these. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the tool reveals a 'trampa' that produces wrong data and which functions cannot be undone, and asserts it is the 'unico canal que llega siempre'. This provides meaningful transparency about its role and reliability.

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: three sentences that state the return value, the usage rule, and the rationale. It is front-loaded with the main function and every sentence adds value. No fluff or repetition.

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 parameters, a simple read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context for an agent to use this tool correctly. It explains what it returns, when to call it, and why it exists, making it complete for its onboarding purpose.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than on inputs.

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's function: 'Devuelve el protocolo de uso de este servidor' (returns the usage protocol for this server). It specifies the content of the protocol (starting point, the trap that causes wrong data, and irreversible functions) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a mandatory first step before all other siigo_* tools.

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 gives explicit usage instruction: 'Llamela antes de cualquier otra herramienta siigo_* en esta conversacion' (call it before any other siigo_* tool). It also explains why this is necessary, because MCP clients may discard server-sent instructions, making this tool the only reliable channel.

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