Historial de EEFF disponibles

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 that it includes IFRS modality (aviso de inicio), but it does not disclose behavior when 'rut' is omitted (the schema shows it as optional) or any other nuances. This is adequate but not rich.

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 that is direct and free of superfluous text. It effectively communicates the core purpose without wasting 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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the description leaves ambiguity about what happens when 'rut' is not provided (does it list all issuers?) and lacks explicit linkage between the parameter and the described behavior. This is a moderate gap for a read-only tool.

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 schema has one parameter 'rut' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'un emisor' but does not explicitly state that the 'rut' parameter identifies that emisor or how to use it. With zero coverage, the description was expected to compensate, but it does not.

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 a specific action ('Lista') and a precise resource ('los períodos (años y cortes) para los que un emisor tiene estados financieros publicados'). It also adds the extra detail of IFRS modality, distinguishing it from sibling tools like cmf_empresa_eeff that likely return the actual financial statements.

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 implies it should be used when needing available periods for a specific issuer, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cmf_empresa_eeff or cmf_empresa_eeff_nch. No exclusions or prerequisite steps are mentioned, leaving the usage guidance somewhat implicit.

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