Buscar entidad supervisada

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns the canonical RUT, razón social, entity type, and status, and specifies the search inputs. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining what the tool outputs and its role in the workflow, though it does not cover potential edge cases like no results or pagination.

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 sentences long, with each sentence serving a distinct purpose: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. There is no redundant filler or repetition of schema details. It is concise and well-structured.

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 tool is a search/discovery tool with an output schema, so the description need not detail return values. However, it omits clarification on the purpose of the 'term' and 'limite' parameters, and given the large sibling list, it could explicitly distinguish from cmf_listar_entidades or cmf_empresa_info. The 'first step' guidance helps but the parameter ambiguity leaves the description incomplete for seamless 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?

The description adds little beyond the schema. It repeats that search is by 'nombre, RUT o ticker', which is already in the schema's description for 'consulta'. However, it does not clarify the purpose of the 'term' parameter (described only as 'Alias de consulta') nor explain the 'limite' parameter. With 67% schema coverage, the description fails to resolve the ambiguity between 'term' and 'consulta', leaving the agent confused about which parameter to use.

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 a specific verb ('Busca') and resource ('entidad supervisada') with explicit search criteria (nombre, RUT, ticker). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning as the recommended first step before consulting EEFF, hechos, etc., making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear usage context: use this tool to find an entity by name/RUT/ticker before querying other financial data. It says 'Es el primer paso recomendado' but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude cases where other search/list tools might be more appropriate, such as cmf_listar_entidades for full listings.

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