EEFF de filiales

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 clear. The description adds useful context about the period and tab reference, but does not describe return format, pagination, or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations already convey.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the key resource type. No unnecessary words or repetition of title or schema details.

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 has three optional parameters, an output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is too terse. It does not explain what specifically constitutes 'filiales', how this differs from cmf_empresa_eeff_historial or cmf_empresa_eeff_nch, or how to frame a correct query. The output schema helps with return structure, but the description leaves the agent without adequate context for tool selection.

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 description mentions 'período' and 'emisor', which hints that mes/anio and rut correspond to the period and issuer, respectively. However, with schema description coverage at 0%, the description should offer more explicit parameter meaning. The parameter names themselves are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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: financial statements of subsidiaries (filiales) for an issuer and a period. The phrase 'pestanía 33' adds a specific reference, and the use of 'filiales' differentiates it from parent-level EEFF tools like cmf_empresa_eeff, though not explicitly naming alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus other EEFF-related tools, nor does it mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or context such as regulatory requirements. Users must infer usage solely from the name and the term 'filiales'.

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