Ver archivos de un tema estadístico del INEC

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety and network reach are covered. The description adds the useful scoping fact that output is one topic page's file links, but says nothing about pagination, whether all links are returned, or extraction failure 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 sentence front-loads the resource (file links) and the parenthetical examples, with the qualifying scope clause last. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover safety. The description supplies the required input provenance; only minor gaps around result scope and the format switch remain.

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 both url (provenance and gob.ec domain constraint) and the text/json format enum are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the loose phrase "topic page" and no format detail, so 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 (retrieves file links) and resource (bulletins, methodology, historical series on one INEC topic page), and anchors it to the sibling that produces the input URL. This clearly separates it from search_inec_estadisticas and from parallel archivo tools like get_inec_publicacion_archivos and get_bce_pagina_archivos.

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 dependency chain is explicit: the URL must come from search_inec_estadisticas's "url" field, which tells the agent when to reach for this tool. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or statement about the publicaciones variant, so it stops short of a 5.

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