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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation. The description adds that each figure comes with its period and lists the covered indicators, but it does not disclose update cadence, data vintage, provisional status, or other behavioral caveats beyond 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 two sentences, front-loads the resource and scope, then gives the usage priority. The indicator enumeration is necessary to define coverage and no sentence is wasted.

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?

It is complete for a zero-parameter aggregator: it names the source, lists the included indicators, notes that each figure has its period, and gives routing guidance. An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained in the description.

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 there is no parameter semantics to clarify beyond the schema. The description's enumeration of included indicators adds content context, but parameter semantics are not applicable and the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 states exactly what the tool returns: the latest headline INDEC figures, each with its period, and enumerates the covered domains (inflation, activity, wages, baskets, poverty, labor). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that each cover a single domain such as inflation_series, wages, or poverty.

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?

It explicitly says 'Usala primero para preguntas generales', giving a clear priority rule for broad questions. It does not name specific alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'first' guidance implies follow-up use of the more specific sibling tools.

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