Listar secciones de un archivo institucional

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 useful scope (which institutions are included) and the chaining hint, but says nothing about pagination, result size, or auth needs.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scoped with the source list, then the chaining hint. No wasted words.

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 annotations covering the safety profile, the description need not explain return values. It covers sources and the follow-up tool adequately, though it omits any hint about result volume or the format parameter's effect.

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% with both params enum-documented, so the baseline is 3. The description's naming of the sources (ARCSA, Superbancos, SEPS, INEVAL, SGR/Educación Superior, SIPA) gives the agent human-readable meaning for the enum codes, a small value-add, but adds no syntax or format detail.

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 (List) and resource (sections of one institution's document archive) and enumerates exactly which archives are covered, so an agent knows precisely what it returns. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling listing tools by its institution-archive scope.

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 'Next: get_archivo_seccion(fuente, seccion)' clause establishes the intended two-step workflow, making the usage context clear. However, it gives no explicit when-not or alternative-selection guidance against the many sibling listing tools.

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