Buscar indicadores en CEPALSTAT

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds useful scope facts (corpus size, thematic categories, regional coverage) but says nothing about result caps, pagination, or behavior on an empty query, which matters for a 2,059-item searchable corpus.

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 zero filler; the scope statement is front-loaded and the workflow hint follows immediately. Every clause carries information.

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-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers corpus, scope, and the next tool. Only minor gaps remain (no indication of result limits or how to narrow an overly broad query), which is acceptable for a zero-required-parameter search tool.

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 the schema already documents lang, query and format, including the accent-insensitive matching and example queries. The description's thematic list loosely implies what 'query' accepts but adds no syntax or defaulting detail beyond what the schema provides; 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 (CEPALSTAT's indicators), quantifies the corpus (2,059), enumerates thematic scope (demographic, economic, environmental, SDG), and explicitly names the sibling get_cepalstat_indicador as the follow-up. An agent can distinguish it from the other indicator tools in the sibling list without opening a schema.

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_cepalstat_indicador for Ecuador's values' gives a concrete routing instruction for the follow-on step, which is genuinely useful for chaining. It doesn't state when this search is preferable to alternatives like search_indicadores_bce or list_sut_indicadores, so no true exclusions are offered, keeping it below a 5.

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