Buscar el catálogo estadístico del BCE

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

Annotations already declare the read-only, non-destructive, open-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: a latency warning that the first call after 24h can take 10-15 s, which no annotation conveys. It stops short of describing result shape or pagination, though the output schema covers returns.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: scope, exclusion, latency caveat, and next step. The scope statement is front-loaded and nothing is padded.

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?

For a read-only search tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is searched, what is excluded, the expected latency on a cold call, and the natural next tool. No meaningful gap remains.

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% with four documented parameters including a format enum and limit/offset semantics, so the schema carries the burden. The description only echoes that the query matches series labels, adding nothing beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource (search BCEData indicator groups), enumerates the covered domains (monetary, fiscal, external, real sector), and notes it matches series names too. It also explicitly disambiguates from the INEC siblings by excluding CPI and poverty, so an agent can distinguish it from search_inec_estadisticas without opening either 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?

Gives clear context for when this is the right entry point and names the follow-up tool ('Next: get_indicador_bce'), establishing the workflow. It does not contrast against the other BCE search siblings (search_bce_iem, search_bce_precios_comex, list_bce_indicadores_diarios), so the routing guidance is good but not exhaustive.

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