Balance de institución financiera

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 established. The description adds useful context about the special value institucion=999 and optionality of cuenta, but does not disclose pagination, response format, or other runtime behaviors, which is acceptable given the read-only annotation coverage.

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 three concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second explains a special parameter value, and the third clarifies optionality. No filler words; every sentence contributes essential information.

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?

The description is sufficient for a simple read-only query with an output schema provided. It covers the main parameters and special values, but leaves unclear whether mes and anio are required together or if the API can be called with no parameters, which is a minor gap.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining the key parameter institucion (999 = total financial system) and clarifying that cuenta is optional. It does not elaborate on mes/anio, but their regex patterns are defined in the schema, so the description adds meaningful value for the less obvious parameters.

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 provides 'Balance mensual de instituciones financieras (bancos)', identifying it as a monthly balance data retrieval tool. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ficha_institucion or resultados_institucion by specifying the resource type 'balance' and notes the special institucion=999 value.

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 gives context about the institution code (999 = total system) and optionality of cuenta, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. Usage is implied (when balance data is needed), but no alternative tools are mentioned.

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