Consultar reporte estadístico de ARCONEL

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint true), so the lower bar applies. The description adds genuine operational context: the call is slow, returns ~50 rows per page, max_paginas caps the work, and completo indicates whether reading was exhaustive — exactly the partial-result caveat an agent needs for a paginated scrape.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the action and the pagination caveat front-loaded. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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, output-schema-backed report tool, the definition covers the essentials: what it does, its slowness, and how to detect incomplete reads. It omits any note on rate limits/repeat-call cost on this 'slow' endpoint and doesn't state that tipo must come from list_arconel_reportes (left to the schema).

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by explaining the pagination semantics of max_paginas ('caps work') and the meaning of completo ('says if everything was read'), i.e. how to interpret a truncated result — real added value over the schema text.

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 verb and resource ('Run one ARCONEL report ... and return its rows') and grounds it with a concrete example ('Balance Energía' for a year). It does not explicitly name the sibling list_arconel_reportes as the discovery step, but the purpose is unmistakable.

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 conveys the general situation (running a single report for a given period) but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to, and does not tell the agent to call list_arconel_reportes first to obtain a valid tipo. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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