Ver el Resumen de Indicadores anual de SIPA

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is a set of monthly PDF links rather than inline indicator values, which is genuinely useful return-format context beyond the annotations, though auth/rate/limitations are undisclosed.

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 resource, scope, and coverage window are all present and nothing is padded.

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-value detail is not required here, and the annotations carry the safety profile. Combined with the description's coverage window and PDF-link disclosure, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only explicit connection to the download tool for retrieving the PDFs is absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema lacks: the valid year floor of 2018 and the fact that results are monthly links. It does not clarify the format enum, but it still exceeds the baseline by constraining the required anio parameter's acceptable range.

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 names a specific resource (SIPA/MAG 'Resumen de Indicadores'), the output form (monthly PDF links), and the time scope (one year, 2018 onward), so an agent knows exactly what it fetches. It does not reference a sibling tool, but no near-duplicate SIPA tool exists in the list, so differentiation is not critical.

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 only guidance is the implicit coverage window ('2018 onward'), which sets a validity bound but is really a parameter range. There is no statement of when to prefer this over alternatives or any exclusions/routing hints.

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