enaho_listar_modulos

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

Beyond annotations (read-only, idempotent), the description discloses the internal logic of combining catalog and domain data, and warns about inferred levels for curado=false modules. This adds behavioral nuance helpful for the agent, such as the need to verify those modules.

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 primary purpose. The second paragraph adds necessary technical context about data sources and quality caveats, but remains focused and does not waste 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the existing output schema, and the annotations, the description adequately covers the main behavior and important caveats. It does not discuss edge cases such as empty years, but that falls outside the tool's core purpose and is not critical.

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 already provides full documentation for both parameters (anio, encuesta), with 100% coverage. The description does not add further parameter-level meaning, only referring to the year generically. Therefore, the baseline of 3 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 clearly states the tool lists published modules for a given year, including their unit of analysis and keys. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the combination of INEI catalog and domain table, and the mention of 'curado=false' adds scope.

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 clear context: use this tool to get an overview of modules for a year, with their analysis unit and join keys. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives, but the distinct focus on 'modulos' and the data combination logic imply a specific use case.

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