Clasificaciones de riesgo

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the data is 'asignadas a emisores e instrumentos por clasificadoras', providing context about the source and target of the ratings. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, result size limits) are disclosed, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 concise sentence with no redundancy or filler. It front-loads the core subject. However, it could have included more operational detail without becoming wordy, so it is concise but slightly under-specified for a 5-parameter tool.

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?

Despite having an output schema and safety annotations, the description lacks essential context for usage: it does not mention that all parameters are optional, how filtering works, or what kind of data is returned beyond the general 'clasificaciones de riesgo'. For an AI agent to select and invoke this tool correctly, more guidance on when to use it and how the filters behave is needed. The description is too thin for a tool with 5 parameters and a low schema description coverage.

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 only 40% (only limit and offset have descriptions). The description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters (emisor, clasificadora, tipo_instrumento). While the parameter names are self-explanatory in Spanish, the description does not clarify expected formats, interplay, or whether they function as filters. Thus it adds little beyond the schema.

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 identifies the resource as 'Clasificaciones de riesgo asignadas a emisores e instrumentos por clasificadoras', which clearly conveys the domain and scope, distinguishing it from insurance-specific classification tools like cmf_seguros_clasificacion_riesgo. However, it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'list' or 'get', so the purpose is clear but not stated as an imperative.

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 mention of optional filters, and no exclusions. It is a bare statement of the tool's subject matter, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema and sibling context.

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