get_expectativa_inflacion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys the semantic nature of the value (a specialist forecast, year-end horizon), which is useful, but says nothing about whether it is a read-only lookup, its return shape, caching, or data freshness.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste, appropriately sized for a zero-parameter lookup. The bilingual restatement adds a little redundancy but no real bloat.

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 simple zero-param read tool this is mostly sufficient, but with no output schema the description never indicates what the returned value looks like (rate, percentage, series, units) or its horizon precision, leaving an inference gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond confirming no inputs are needed.

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 scope: inflation expected by specialists at year-end, which is a distinct data series from the sibling actual-inflation tools (get_inflacion_udis, get_inflacion_ytd). It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. The agent must infer from the name alone that this returns a forecast series rather than realized inflation, and nothing tells it when this is the right tool versus get_inflacion_ytd or get_inflacion_udis.

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