Ver serie de un indicador diario del BCE

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the hard 366-row cap and the mutual exclusivity of the two query modes. It omits auth requirements but the annotation bar is lower here.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource and the key provenance constraint. No filler, though the parenthetical breaks the flow slightly.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the row cap and mode selection, but leaves sibling routing and any auth/permission context unaddressed, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including the ultimos_n/date-range interaction. The description largely restates the schema rather than adding format or validation detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete resource (one BCE daily/monthly indicator) and explicitly ties its required inputs (archivo and codigo) to list_bce_indicadores_diarios, which distinguishes it from that list sibling. However it never differentiates from the similarly named get_indicador_bce/search_indicadores_bce, so sibling separation is only partial.

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 reveals two retrieval modes (last ultimos_n points or a date range), which implies usage, but never states when to choose this tool over get_indicador_bce or the search/list siblings. No explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance is given.

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