enaho_listar_encuestas

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description reveals that each survey has its own join keys and expansion factor, that verificado=false surveys have inferred keys requiring confirmation, and that catalog surveys without a profile can be downloaded but cannot be joined. These are meaningful behavioral details not present in 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 well-structured: the first sentence states purpose, the second gives usage guidance, and the remaining sentences add important caveats about verification and profiles. Each sentence contributes distinct, non-redundant information.

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 list tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, when to use, output characteristics (verificado flag, profiles), and limitations. It provides sufficient context for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 the baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but none are needed since there are none.

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 immediately states that the tool lists which INEI surveys the server can handle besides ENAHO, with a clear verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself by listing specific survey topics (ENDES, ENAPRE, ENUT, etc.), making it unique from siblings like enaho_listar_modulos and enaho_listar_datasets.

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 instructs to consult this tool when the user asks about topics ENAHO doesn't measure, providing concrete examples. It also recommends a follow-up action (confirm with enaho_perfil) for surveys with inferred keys, clarifying when additional verification is needed.

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