Buscar publicaciones de Ecuador en Cifras

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the newest-first ordering and the staleness caveat about topic pages. It doesn't describe pagination or result shape, but the added ordering/staleness info is valuable.

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 tight clauses with the core purpose and the next-step routing front-loaded; little waste. The 'Next:' pointer is slightly verbose but functional.

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 values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies purpose, ordering, and workflow routing, leaving only minor gaps (pagination behavior) that the schema largely addresses.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (limit, query, format, offset) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format/syntax detail beyond implying newest-first ordering; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the lifting.

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 resource (INEC posts on 'Ecuador en Cifras') with scope and ordering ('every ... newest first'). An agent can tell what it retrieves without opening the schema, though it does not explicitly name which sibling it competes with.

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 a concrete use case ('for the latest release of an operation') plus a reason ('topic pages can go stale') and names the follow-up tool get_inec_publicacion_archivos. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or direct sibling comparison.

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