tabla_pcaxis

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

With no annotations, the description does useful work by disclosing that values are pre-converted and that None means unavailable/secret data rather than zero — a real correctness trap avoided. It says nothing about truncation at max_filas, rate limits, or failure behavior when the table id/URL is invalid, which matters for a network fetch tool.

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?

Compact with no filler, but the second clause is a run-on enumeration ('id de tabla del INE (24077), URL Tabla.htm del INE, Interior, Educación o Cultura, o URL del fichero') where the 'Interior, Educación o Cultura' fragment is ambiguous rather than clearly listing accepted input forms.

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 read-only fetch tool with no output schema and three undocumented schema params, the description covers input forms, filter behavior and the None convention but leaves output shape (columns returned) and truncation behavior unaddressed, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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 explain tabla (INE id, Tabla.htm URL, or file URL) and filtro (substring match across any field, with code/name/period examples), but max_filas — whose default of 200 implies silent truncation — is never mentioned.

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?

States a specific resource and outcome: a PC-Axis table returned as rows with numbers already converted, plus the None semantics. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like ckan_filas, socrata_filas or descargar, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which row-fetching tool to pick.

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?

Implicitly scoped to INE PC-Axis tables via the accepted inputs (INE table id, Tabla.htm URL, file URL), which implies 'use this for INE statistical tables'. There is no explicit when-to-use versus ckan_filas/socrata_filas/descargar, and no when-not guidance.

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