Cronología bancaria

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 only the historical scope and serverlet name, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as how the 'indice' parameter affects results, pagination, or output format beyond what the schema already shows.

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 short sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified. It omits crucial usage and parameter information, so its brevity is not an asset but a gap. It does not earn its place as a complete specification.

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 tool has one optional parameter with no schema description and no parameter explanation, the description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke it with meaningful arguments. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the input semantics and usage context are missing, leaving a significant completeness gap even for a simple 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the 'indice' parameter at all. Its default value '8.0' is cryptic, and the agent receives no guidance on what values are valid or what they represent. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 'Cronología histórica del sistema bancario chileno' clearly identifies the resource (Chilean banking system) and scope (historical chronology), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cmf_bancos_tasas and cmf_bancos_reportes. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', making it slightly less direct than ideal.

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 exclusions. It only states what the tool is about, not how or when it should be selected.

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