Listar informes de datos abiertos de Contraloría

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds content-level context (what data the collection contains, its cadence) but does not address result size, pagination, or freshness beyond 'quarterly.'

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 compact sentences with no filler, and the data scope is front-loaded. The 'Next:' clause is efficient but telegraphic, reading more like a note than polished guidance.

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 described, and the description adequately conveys the scope of what is listed. A minor gap remains: no note on whether results are large or how they are ordered.

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% and the single 'format' parameter is fully documented with its enum. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the weight.

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 resource (Contraloría audit reports) and scopes it precisely to 'quarterly CSVs of audit reports approved for any public institution, plus annual control plans.' This is clearly distinct from the sibling get_contraloria_informe, but the description never restates the listing verb explicitly, leaving intent slightly implicit.

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_contraloria_informe' clause implies the list-then-fetch workflow and routes to the sibling. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this list versus other Contraloría-related or Ecuadorian open-data search tools; usage is only loosely implied.

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