Ver archivos de una página de publicaciones del BCE

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral context: the result includes title, URL and format, sorted most recent first, and anio only filters the indices catalog. It does not discuss rate limits, pagination, or auth, but with annotations covering safety, this is strong.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and return details; the second adds the anio filter constraint. Every sentence earns its place.

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, complete input schema descriptions, and annotations, the description needs only to orient the agent. It states what the tool returns, the sort order, and the conditional anio filter, which is enough for correct invocation across the five parameters.

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 all five parameters, including defaults, enums, and constraints. The description restates that anio filters the indices catalog by year and mentions sorting, but adds little beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: returns files of one BCE publication page, with returned fields (title, URL, format) and sort order. It also identifies where pagina_id comes from (search_bce_paginas). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_inec_publicacion_archivos or get_bce_iem_table, 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?

Usage is implied: call this to get files for a BCE page, after obtaining pagina_id from search_bce_paginas. The description notes that anio filters the indices catalog by year, adding context. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives or exclusions, so it remains at the minimum-viable level.

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