Listar colecciones de documentos del IESS

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context by disclosing what the listing contains (bulletin/study/report types with years and counts), but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result size.

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 short sentences with the resource description front-loaded and the routing hint trailing. Nothing is wasted, though the 'Next:' fragment is abrupt and could be slightly more explicit.

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 in the description, and the annotations cover safety. Combined with the named follow-up tool, the definition is nearly complete for a zero-required-param lister; only alternative-selection guidance is missing.

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 in the schema with its enum and default. The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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 description names a specific resource (IESS document collections) and enumerates the content types (statistical bulletins, actuarial studies, audit reports) plus the shape of returned data (years and counts). An agent knows what it lists, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling listers like list_contraloria_informes.

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?

'Next: get_iess_archivos' supplies a downstream workflow hint, which implies this is the discovery step feeding a file fetcher. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not, and no comparison against alternative collection listers.

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