Hechos esenciales de empresa

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already establish this as a safe read operation. The description adds context about the source tab ('pestanía 25') and the included fields (document number and download link), but does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or ordering. With the annotations bearing the safety burden, the description provides moderate additional value.

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, compact sentence that conveys the essential information without unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the key detail about the download link, making it easy to parse.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, but it does not clarify that all parameters are optional or how to structure typical queries (e.g., by RUT alone, by date range only). This leaves the agent uncertain about query flexibility. A more complete description would state that 'rut' may be omitted for global searches or provide an example.

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 covers only 40% of parameters (limit and offset have descriptions), while rut, desde, and hasta lack descriptions. The description partially compensates by revealing that data is filtered by emitter ('emisor') and date range ('rango de fechas'), which clarifies rut and the date fields. However, it does not explicitly map each parameter or explain edge cases, leaving some ambiguity for a low-coverage schema.

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 tool's purpose: retrieving essential facts ('hechos esenciales') published by an issuer within a date range, including document number and download link. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sanciones, resoluciones, and juntas by naming the specific data type. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'obtener' or 'listar', making it slightly less direct.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cmf_hechos_globales or other empresa-specific tools. The description alludes to date-range queries and issuer context, but there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer usage from sibling tool names.

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