Buscar tablas del boletín IEM del BCE

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 structurally. The description adds the content scope and that historico switches to past bulletins, but discloses nothing extra about the cost/audit side of hash_archivos or the pagination set. Adequate but not rich given annotations carry most of the load.

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?

Three tight sentences, leading with what it searches before the flag and the hand-off. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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, full parameter coverage, and safety annotations in place, the description only needs to establish purpose and the search-to-retrieve hand-off, both of which it does. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema (including the slow hash_archivos note and year ranges implying historico). The description only restates the historico flag, so 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Excel tables of BCE's monthly IEM bulletin) and enumerates the subject matter (trade by country, debt, fiscal, oil, GDP detail). The trailing 'Next: get_bce_iem_table' distinguishes it from the companion retrieval tool.

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 description gives clear usage context ('historico=true searches past bulletins') and routes the agent to the next step in the workflow (get_bce_iem_table). It does not explicitly contrast against near-neighbors like search_bce_publicaciones or search_bce_paginas, so no full when-not guidance.

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