Dividendos de sociedades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which cover safety expectations. The description adds the 'detalle y resumen' distinction, indicating that the output can be either detailed or summarized. However, it does not add other behavioral context like rate limits, response size, or authentication requirements. With annotations present, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that is front-loaded with the core subject 'Dividendos declarados'. There is no redundancy or filler. However, its brevity comes at the cost of omitting important parameter and usage information, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

With six parameters, zero schema coverage, and no output schema details provided, the one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to construct a valid request. The meaning of the date fields, type of dividend, and society list remain opaque. The 'detalle y resumen' hint is the only additional context, leaving the tool under-described.

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 provides no explanation for the six parameters (mes, anio, mes2, anio2, tipodiv, sociedades). An agent cannot infer what these parameters mean, their formats, or how they should be combined. The description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions at all.

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 identifies the resource as dividends declared by public limited companies, with both detail and summary levels. It distinguishes this tool from the many other CMF tools since 'dividendos' is a unique domain. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'obtener' or 'listar', though the intent is apparent from the title and description.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention filter options, date ranges, or how it relates to sibling tools such as cmf_empresa_info or other dividend-related APIs. The usage context is only implied by the title and description.

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