get_inflacion_udis

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 discloses that the output is a % variation acting as an inflation proxy, but says nothing about date handling, whether the period bounds are inclusive, auth requirements, or what the response contains. This is a thin disclosure for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 compact sentence with the core meaning front-loaded and zero padding. The duplicated English gloss adds little for an API whose parameters are already Spanish, but it is a minor cost.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should explain the return shape and date format. It leaves the two required parameters, the return value, and the period semantics entirely to inference.

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% for both required parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It implies the two dates frame a period, but adds no date format (ISO vs DD/MM/YYYY), ordering rules, or boundary semantics for fecha_ini and fecha_fin.

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 names a specific resource (UDIS), an operation (percentage variation over a period), and adds interpretive framing (inflation proxy), which lets an agent distinguish it from get_udis_hoy and get_inflacion_ytd. It is clear, though the bilingual repetition and terse notation keep it from being maximally crisp, and it never explicitly names the sibling it is not.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternative tools such as get_inflacion_ytd or get_udis_hoy. The agent must infer from the phrase 'en periodo' alone that this is the ranged option.

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