EEFF IFRS de sociedades anónimas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral nuance: '0=todas' indicates the wildcard behavior for the sociedades parameter, and 'y otras entidades' expands the scope beyond strictly S.A. entities. However, it does not disclose period constraints, output structure, or other execution behaviors.

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 two short sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the primary resource. It earns its place by stating the core purpose and the key selection instruction. It is concise but at the expense of missing crucial parameter details, so it is not a 5.

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 five parameters and low schema coverage, the description should explain the date range semantics (mes1/anio1 to mes2/anio2) and any prerequisites. It does not, and the mention of 'sistema sa_eeff_ifrs' is cryptic. It also fails to reference related tools like cmf_listados_eeff_ifrs for enumerating RUTs or cmf_fechas_divulgacion_eeff for filing dates, making it incomplete for a real workflow.

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 20% (the sociedades parameter), leaving mes1, mes2, anio1, and anio2 undocumented. The description explains 'Seleccione sociedades por RUT (0=todas)' for the sociedades parameter but says nothing about the four date parameters, their meaning (likely a period range), format, or whether they are required. This is a major gap for an agent trying to construct a valid request.

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 'Estados financieros IFRS de sociedades anónimas y otras entidades', clearly indicating it provides IFRS financial statements for corporations and others. This distinguishes it from NCH-based siblings (e.g., cmf_empresa_eeff_nch) and other entity-specific EEFF tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'consult', making the action less direct.

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 only usage guidance is 'Seleccione sociedades por RUT (0=todas)', which is a parameter selection instruction, not a when-to-use guideline. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, such as 'for non-S.A. entities use' or 'for NCH statements use cmf_empresa_eeff_nch'. The description does not help the agent choose between this and sibling tools.

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