Ver campos de un indicador del SUT

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the shape of the result (columns, measures, date levels), but says nothing about latency, rate limits, authentication, or behavior for an invalid indicador key. With annotations carrying the core behavioral traits, a 3 is appropriate.

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 tight sentence with no filler; the resource and its return contents are front-loaded, and the trailing reference to query_sut_indicador closes the loop efficiently.

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, the description needn't explain return values, and annotations plus full parameter coverage handle most of the burden. The only mild gap is that it doesn't state what happens for an invalid or missing indicador key, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (indicador, format) are already documented, and the description reinforces that one indicator key is being targeted. It adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 definition states a specific resource (queryable fields of one SUT dashboard indicator) and enumerates exactly what is returned: columns, measures ([medida]) and date levels. It also names the consumer tool query_sut_indicador, so an agent can distinguish this schema-discovery tool from the sibling that actually runs the query.

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 phrase 'for query_sut_indicador' makes the intended workflow clear: call this to learn the available fields before querying. There is no explicit when-not or exclusion guidance, but the pairing with the sibling tool leaves little ambiguity about when to reach for it.

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