Integrantes de directorio 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 known. The description adds only 'API oficial v3', which is version information and not behavioral disclosure. It doesn't describe output shape, filtering behavior, or any operational characteristics.

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, front-loaded sentence that is appropriately concise. It avoids wordiness, though it is also sparse in content.

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 are covered, but the description lacks essential context about how to use the tool: what value to pass for 'institucion', whether 'mes' and 'anio' are optional filters, and how this tool relates to siblings. It is too thin to be complete.

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 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters. While 'mes', 'anio', and 'institucion' are self-explanatory Spanish names, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, especially the required 'institucion' parameter and its expected format.

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 resource: members of the directory (board) of a financial institution. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'accionistas' (shareholders) by naming a different entity type, though it doesn't explicitly contrast it with them.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about how it fits among the many sibling tools. It is a bare statement of what it returns.

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