EEFF NCH de sociedades anónimas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific reporting standard (NCH/FECU) and entity type, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as required parameter combinations, response format, or limitations, beyond what annotations provide.

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, concise phrase with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it lacks a verb and is not structured as a complete sentence. It earns a high score for zero fluff, but a slightly lower score due to underspecification.

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 5 parameters with no descriptions and no required fields, the description should clarify basic usage context (e.g., that period values must be provided and sociedades defaults to '0'). It does not. Although an output schema exists, the lack of input semantics makes the tool incomplete for correct invocation.

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%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the 5 parameters. The parameter names (mes1, mes2, anio1, anio2, sociedades) are cryptic, and the description does not compensate by explaining that they represent a period range and list of companies. This is a severe gap for agent usability.

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 under Chilean standard (NCH/FECU) for corporations. It distinguishes itself from siblings like cmf_eeff_ifrs_sa by explicitly mentioning NCH/FECU. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'obtiene' or 'consulta', making it a noun phrase rather than a full action statement.

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 usage for accessing NCH financial statements of Chilean corporations, which provides context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cmf_empresa_eeff or cmf_eeff_ifrs_sa. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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