Valores APV

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, date-range constraints, or required filters, offering nothing beyond what the annotations and schema already imply.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the resource and key dimensions. It is concise and free of waste, though it is arguably too terse to fully support an agent's decision-making.

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 tool with six optional parameters and no inline documentation, the description is inadequate. The output schema exists, so return formatting doesn't need explanation, but the purpose, parameter semantics, and intended usage context remain too vague for reliable invocation.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'tipo' and 'cuadro' without explaining possible values or how the optional month/year parameters work. It adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names, leaving the agent uncertain about valid inputs.

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 resource as 'valores de ahorro previsional voluntario (APV)' and mentions the key dimensions 'tipo' and 'cuadro'. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'consulta' or 'recupera') and does not differentiate itself beyond the unique resource name, which is otherwise clear among the many sibling tools.

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 context about when to use this tool versus the many other CMF financial data tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites, filters, or alternative tools. An agent would have no guidance on selecting this tool for a specific task.

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