Indicadores ASG (ESG)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context about the data sources (memoria integrada, SASB, XBRL SASB), but does not disclose more behavioral details such as return format, pagination, or required permissions.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the data types. No wasted words.

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?

Output schema exists and annotations are adequate, but the description does not explain how to specify the issuer (rut) or time period (mes/anio). Given the simplicity of the query and self-explanatory parameter names, it is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 25%, with only tipo_informe documented. The description partially aligns with tipo_informe values (memoria integrada, SASB, XBRL SASB) but does not explain mes, anio, or rut. Although parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 the tool provides ESG (environmental, social, governance) indicators for an issuer, naming specific report types (integrated report, SASB, XBRL SASB) and the 'pestaña 110' scope. This distinguishes it from sibling company-data tools like cmf_empresa_info or cmf_empresa_eeff.

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 context (per issuer, tab 110) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus related alternatives (e.g., other company indicators or XBRL tools). No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided.

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