Metadatos de series BDE (descripción, frecuencia, unidad)

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 known. The description adds context that it returns metadata fields rather than data, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or pagination. With annotations covering the main concerns, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by a concrete use case. Every word earns its place with no fluff 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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (2 parameters, 1 required), the presence of an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete. It conveys the tool's official nature, the metadata fields returned, and the recommended usage context, leaving no critical gaps.

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?

The schema provides a solid description for 'timeseries' including comma-separated codes and a max of 30, with an example. The 'lang' parameter has an enum (es/en) that is self-explanatory. The description adds only that it handles one or more series, which is already implied by the schema, so it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 the tool returns official metadata (description, frequency, unit) for one or more BDE series. It explicitly distinguishes this from data retrieval by noting it's useful to verify a code exists before requesting data, which differentiates it from the sibling tools bcentral_serie_datos and bcentral_series_populares.

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 explicitly says to use this tool before requesting data to verify a code exists and what it represents. It gives clear contextual guidance but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, though the 'antes de pedir datos' phrase implies the contrast with data-fetching tools.

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