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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that inflation is chained, not summed; that it returns factor, accumulated percentage, annualized value, and each month; and that it will report missing published months instead of inventing data. This is meaningful behavioral context without contradicting the 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 four short sentences with no fluff: purpose and method come first, then parameter semantics, outputs, failure behavior, and cost. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by listing the returned items (factor, accumulated percentage, annualized, each month) and the missing-data behavior. It also gives the base-month rule and references the default 'hasta' behavior via the schema, making it complete enough to invoke correctly.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage of the parameters, including format and the default for 'hasta'. The description adds useful semantics beyond the schema by explaining that 'desde' is the base month and by describing the chaining rule, so it earns more than the baseline 3.

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 is explicit about the tool's purpose: cumulative inflation in Argentina between two months, chaining INDEC's monthly IPC rather than summing it. It names the resource and the return values, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from a sibling like serie_economica, 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?

The description clearly establishes the intended computation and gives an important usage rule: 'El mes desde es la base: de agosto a agosto son doce meses.' It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name an alternative, but the computation is specific enough that selection is mostly unambiguous.

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