Ver serie de un indicador BCEData

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the range, frequency and unit are optional filters, without noting limits, failures on unknown group ids, or payload size — modest added value on top of the annotations.

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 packs the verb, resource, provenance of the key parameter, and the optional filters with zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 the required id_grupo plus its source tool is covered along with the optional narrowing filters. It could still mention the default text-vs-json output mode or behavior on an invalid group id, but it is complete enough to call correctly.

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 all six parameters (including YYYY-MM semantics, the frequency enum and the unit examples) are already documented in the schema. The description merely restates "optional YYYY-MM range, frequency and unit", adding no meaning beyond the structured fields, 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Time series of one BCEData group") and names its sibling search_indicadores_bce as the provenance of id_grupo, which cleanly separates retrieval from discovery. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the other BCE sibling tools, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 parenthetical "id_grupo from search_indicadores_bce" tells the agent the prerequisite discovery step and what value to feed in. There is no explicit when-not or exclusion guidance, but the context for invocation is clear.

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