Facturación por período

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the time-window scope and reconciliation purpose, but doesn't disclose return format, pagination, or data-source behavior. 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?

A single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core output (billing/commissions evolution and totals) and then states the purpose, making the tool easy to scan.

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 read-only report with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the output subject and purpose well. It doesn't enumerate exact response metrics, but the low complexity and rich annotations make it sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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%, so both parameters are already documented (dias window with default and range; cuenta ID and omission behavior). The description only reinforces 'últimos N días' and adds no deeper parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool's subject: evolution of billing and commissions over a rolling N-day window, with totals for reconciliation. It lacks an explicit imperative verb and doesn't name sibling tools, but the AFIP/month-end-closing detail distinguishes it from generic metrics 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 phrase 'con los totales necesarios para conciliar contra AFIP o para un cierre de mes' gives an explicit use-case context. However, it doesn't mention when to prefer an alternative tool or when not to use this one, so exclusionary guidance is missing.

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