Adecuación de capital

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 context about the data content (capital adequacy components) but does not disclose behavioral details such as handling of institution code 999 or potential empty results. This is acceptable given the read-only nature and existing annotations.

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 a single, focused sentence with a parenthetical list, making it concise and front-loaded with the resource name. It could be improved by starting with an explicit verb, but it is efficiently sized with no wasted words.

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?

For a read-only data query tool with an output schema, annotations, and 5 parameters, the description sufficiently defines the scope and the meaning of key enums. It lacks explicit usage guidance but is otherwise complete enough for an agent to correctly select and invoke the 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?

The description maps the enum values of 'componente' to human-readable financial terms (activos ponderados, límites, patrimonio efectivo, IRE/IRS) and clarifies that 'indicador' is relevant only when 'componente=indicadores'. This adds meaning beyond the terse schema descriptions, though mes/anio are left to pattern interpretation.

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 identifies the specific resource (capital adequacy components/indicators of financial institutions) and lists examples (activos ponderados, límites, patrimonio efectivo, IRE/IRS), which distinguishes it from sibling institutional data tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'query', making it slightly less action-oriented.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name exclusions. The domain-specific wording implies its use for capital adequacy data, but an agent would have to infer this from context rather than receive direct guidance.

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