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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions the type of measurement options and the default, but doesn't disclose aspects like data source specifics, frequency of updates, or whether it's a read-only operation. It's a simple query tool, so basic transparency is adequate, but additional context like 'read-only' would be helpful.

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 concise: a single sentence followed by a clear Args section. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently explains the parameter in the same space. No wasted words.

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 a single optional parameter and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It explains the parameter options and default, and the output schema covers return format. Minor gaps like not specifying how inflation data is calculated or frequency of updates, but these are not critical for basic usage.

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 input schema has only one parameter with a default but no description or enum values. Schema coverage is 0%, but the description does define the parameter 'tipo' and its options ('anual' or 'mensual'), which exceeds the schema's information. However, it relies on the description for meaning, which it provides clearly, so it's a 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?

Description clearly states the tool queries official inflation in Mexico based on INPC from Banxico, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like tipo_cambio_usd that deal with exchange rates and valor_udis for UDIs. The verb 'Consulta' plus the resource 'inflación oficial' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains the tool can be used for annual (default) or monthly inflation measurements, which clarifies usage in context. It does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives, but the domain (inflation) is distinct enough from siblings, so the context implies when to use it.

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