Reportes de instituciones financieras (BaseDato)

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

The description discloses a valuable behavioral trait: the tool may require solving a CMF anti-bot challenge and should be retried if it fails. This adds context beyond the annotations' read/destructive hints, which is important for execution, though other behaviors like response format or rate limits are not covered.

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, compact sentence with essential anti-bot information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no fluff, making it very concise.

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 5 optional parameters and many sibling report tools, the description is too terse to provide enough context for correct selection and invocation. It does not explain what report categories exist, how the parameters relate, or what differentiates this tool from similar ones, despite having an output schema.

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 provides no parameter-level detail, leaving `indice`, `reporte`, `institucion`, and period fields unexplained. With schema coverage at 60%, the missing parameters (indice, periodo_final) are unaddressed, and the description does not compensate for these gaps.

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 states it provides reports from the BaseDato system for financial institutions, but it uses a noun phrase rather than a clear verb and does not specify what kinds of reports are included. It is somewhat distinguishable from sibling tools via 'BaseDato' but remains vague compared to more specific bank report 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions retrying on failure due to anti-bot challenges, but gives no context for selecting this over other CMF report tools or any prerequisites or exclusions.

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