excepciones

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, how results are ordered or returned, whether pagination applies, or what happens at the threshold boundary. Only the classification-by-materiality behavior is disclosed.

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 front-loaded phrase with no filler, but its brevity tips into under-specification rather than efficient conciseness given three required parameters.

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 three-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the definition is too thin to call confidently. Dates, threshold semantics, and the shape of the returned classification are all left to guesswork.

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 0% for all three required parameters. The description hints that 'umbral' acts as an upper/lower cutoff and implies a date scope, but it never explains the expected date format, inclusivity, or units for the threshold, leaving fecha_desde and fecha_hasta effectively undocumented.

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 phrase names a concrete resource (facturas) with a filter condition (sobre umbral) and an organizing dimension (materialidad), so an agent can infer it returns invoices above a threshold grouped by materiality. It lacks an action verb and does not distinguish itself from siblings like facturas_venta or cuadre_factura, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no indication of when to choose this tool over the many sibling reporting tools (facturas_venta, cuadre_factura, resumen_iva). Usage must be inferred purely from the noun phrase, with no exclusions or alternatives named.

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