Ver observaciones de un indicador CEPALSTAT

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds one genuine behavioral trait beyond that – dimension ids are decoded to labels in the output – but says nothing about return volume, pagination, or missing-data behavior.

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 zero filler; the core action and its scoping constraint come first. Appropriately sized given a 100%-covered schema, output schema, and safety annotations.

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 and full parameter coverage, the description need not explain return values, and it correctly doesn't. It is nearly complete for a read-only retrieval tool, with only the missing sibling-routing guidance as a residual 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including enums and defaults. The description only restates the country-scoping behavior ('one country, Ecuador by default'), adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. 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 specific verb+resource ('Observations of one CEPALSTAT indicator for one country') plus useful scope details (Ecuador default, dimension ids decoded to labels). An agent can tell it retrieves observation data, but the description never names its sibling search_cepalstat_indicadores, so differentiation relies on the schema.

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 gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The only contextual hint ('Ecuador by default') is a parameter default, not usage direction; the routing hint to search_cepalstat_indicadores lives in the indicator_id schema field, not the description.

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