Rankear compañías por indicadores financieros

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful scope constraint (the last-five-years window and the note that ranking is per fiscal year), but says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering defaults beyond order_by, or data-quality caveats.

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 sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Minor deduction for the awkward plural/typo ("Supercías") and for packing three distinct ideas into one run-on second sentence.

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, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the key modifiers (year range, CIIU, descending). Annotations cover the safety profile. The main remaining gap is not telling the agent how this differs from the other company/financial siblings.

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 anio, limit, offset, ciiu_n1, order_by, format and descending in detail. The description only echoes the year window, CIIU option and descending semantics, adding no meaning beyond the schema; 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 ("Rank") plus resource ("companies") and scope ("by financial indicators for one fiscal year"), which is clearer than a bare name restatement. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like search_companias, get_compania_info, or get_financials, so an agent cannot tell from prose alone why it should choose this ranking tool over those.

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?

"for one fiscal year (last five years)" and "descending=true for top-N" give embedded usage hints, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives. Usage is implied through parameter explanation rather than stated.

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