Consulta de dictámenes

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It does not disclose whether both parameters are required, how results are ordered, or any limitations. While annotations cover the safety profile, the description contributes nothing about the tool's behavioral traits.

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 concise (five words), but it is under-specified to the point of being a label rather than a useful description. It does not earn its place because it adds no information beyond the title, and important context about parameters and usage is missing.

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 two parameters and an output schema, the description provides almost no context. It does not explain what 'dictámenes' are, how the date range behaves, or how this tool fits with siblings. The output schema covers return values, but the tool's purpose and usage constraints are largely unexplained.

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 input schema has two parameters (desde, hasta) with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not mention them at all. The agent is left to infer that they are date filters from the 'YYYY-MM-DD' pattern, with no explanation of their semantics or relationship to the dictámenes being queried.

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 'Consulta de dictámenes de la CMF' states a clear action (consulta) and resource (dictámenes de la CMF), so it is not a pure tautology. However, it essentially repeats the tool title and does not distinguish this tool from other CMF query tools like cmf_sanciones_globales or cmf_resoluciones_globales, leaving the specific nature of 'dictámenes' undefined.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, any prerequisites, or context about the date-range parameters. It simply states the action without any direction for the agent.

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