Buscar boletines zonales de infoMIES

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: the data coverage windows (2017-2021 for zonal, 2021-2026 consolidado 'still updated') and the fact that it returns links rather than embedded data.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource and then enumerates both modes with parenthetical detail. Efficient and structured, though the parenthetical clause for 'consolidado' is slightly asymmetric with the 'zonal' clause.

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 safety. The description supplies the mode semantics, year coverage, and the zona requirement, leaving only edge cases (e.g., combining anio with modo, or a missing zona) to the schema.

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 and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces modo semantics and the zona dependency, but adds little syntax or format detail the schema does not already carry.

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 (infoMIES zonal bulletins) and clearly distinguishes its two modes with their file types, year ranges, and requirements, so an agent knows what it retrieves (links). However, it never references the closest sibling search_infomies_bases_mensuales, so the boundary against that adjacent tool must be inferred.

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?

Provides implied routing: 'zonal' for per-zone .rar files and 'consolidado' for yearly XLSX, plus 'needs zona' as a condition. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, nor a named alternative among the many sibling list/search tools, so the guidance stays implicit.

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