enaho_estado_catalogo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond these: the catalog is a fixed snapshot from the publish date, so newer INEI waves are not visible to the server. It also discloses that the response includes the crawl date and a refresh recommendation, enriching the behavioral model without contradiction.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: first the purpose, then the trigger condition, then the rationale for the stale catalog. It is front-loaded, concise, and well-structured in Spanish.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, why the state can be outdated, and what the response provides (crawl date and refresh advice). It also names the related refresh tool, making it contextually whole.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since the input schema is trivially complete, and the description adds no parameter-related confusion.

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's purpose: it reports the origin and age of the INEI catalog used by the server. It uses a specific resource and a clear state-query intent, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning the refresh counterpart enaho_actualizar_catalogo.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Consultala cuando una herramienta diga que un anio no existe y el usuario insista en que si.' It also explains why the catalog might be stale and points to enaho_actualizar_catalogo for refreshing, covering both usage and alternatives.

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