Datos de series económicas del Banco Central (UF, UTM, IPC, TPM, tipo de cambio…)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: authentication via BCENTRAL_API_KEY and a per-call limit of 30 series. This goes beyond the minimal annotation information, though it doesn't cover other potential aspects like rate limits or error behavior.

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?

The description is two sentences, both informative and waste-free. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds necessary constraints. No filler or redundancy.

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 and complete parameter descriptions, the description covers essential context: purpose, authentication requirement, and series limit. The sibling tools are known, and the description implicitly differentiates. Slight gaps remain around error conditions or response format, but these are partially covered by the output schema, so the description is effectively complete for a data-fetching 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 explains each parameter in detail. The description does not add significant extra meaning beyond what the schema provides; it reiterates the period range concept but lacks new semantic details. The baseline of 3 applies when schema does the heavy lifting, and the description adds only marginal value here.

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?

The description clearly states it returns observaciones (observations) of economic series from the Central Bank database over a period range. It names the specific database (BDE/SIETE) and the resource type, making it distinct from sibling tools like bcentral_series_populares or bcentral_serie_info, which are for listing popular series or retrieving metadata.

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?

The description provides important context on prerequisites (BCENTRAL_API_KEY) and constraints (max 30 series per call). It does not explicitly say when to use this tool over siblings, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer this is for fetching data, not for metadata or popular series lists.

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