Buscar archivos de remesas de trabajadores del BCE

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the tool 'Returns links' rather than data and notes the July 2025 coverage boundary, but says nothing about result counts, pagination, or access requirements.

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 compact sentence with no filler; the resource and the three content categories are front-loaded. The embedded parenthetical about the distinct series is slightly dense but earns its place.

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 need not explain return values, and it adequately conveys the scope of the corpus for a two-param search. The only meaningful gap is the absence of routing guidance among the many sibling BCE tools.

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%: the query param already documents accent-insensitive free-text matching against label or URL with examples, and format documents the text/json enum. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, 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 (BCE worker-remittance file links) and enumerates what the corpus contains: historical series, a methodology note, and a post-July-2025 microdata-based monthly series. It is clearly distinguishable in substance from generic BCE searches, though it never names or contrasts any sibling 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many other BCE search tools (search_bce_iem, search_bce_publicaciones, search_bce_paginas, etc.). The aside that the microdata database is 'a distinct series' hints at result-set structure but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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