Directorio y administración

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as how RUT is used, whether results are filtered, or what the response contains beyond the generic subject matter.

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 very short, but it qualifies as under-specification rather than conciseness. It is a sentence fragment without a verb, and the parenthetical '(pestanía 4)' is low-value noise that does not help an AI agent understand the tool's operation.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional param, read-only, output schema present), the description is still insufficient. With over 80 sibling tools, it must clarify the exact scope and relationship to other company data tools, which it does not. The description only names the data category and fails to explain how 'directorio' relates to other metadata like accionistas or hechos.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'rut' parameter. The description does not mention 'rut' at all, nor does it explain that the issuer is identified by RUT or whether the parameter is required. The only hint comes from the context 'de un emisor', which is too indirect to count as meaningful parameter semantics.

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 'Directores y gerentes de un emisor' clearly identifies the content area (directors and managers of an issuer), but it is a noun phrase without a verb such as 'list' or 'get'. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools beyond naming a different data category, and the suffix '(pestanía 4)' adds navigational context that is not functional.

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 information about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., cmf_empresa_accionistas, cmf_empresa_info). There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or alternative tools that should be preferred.

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