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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the two rate types and their meanings, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, any data source caveats, or what the response structure looks like, though an output schema exists.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a compact parameter explanation. The Args section is slightly redundant with the schema but earns its place by adding semantic meaning to the parameter values.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the key decision (which rate type to request) but lacks guidance on when to prefer this over consultar_serie_sie or whether there are any rate limits or data freshness considerations.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining the 'tipo' parameter's two options ('tiie_28' and 'objetivo') with their meanings. This adds real value beyond the bare schema, though it could be more explicit about the default behavior.

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 states the tool queries Mexican interbank and monetary policy interest rates, with a specific verb ('Consulta') and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tipo_cambio_usd and inflacion_mexico by focusing on interest rates, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling.

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 implies usage by listing the two valid options for 'tipo' and their meanings, which helps an agent choose the right parameter value. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like consultar_serie_sie, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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