Identificación de empresa

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 established. The description adds useful context about the data fields returned and the source, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether the RUT is required, error behavior, or pagination. Given the annotations cover the main concern, a 3 is appropriate.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and data fields. It is appropriately sized, with no unnecessary information, though it contains a minor typo ('pestanía' instead of 'pestaña').

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 description is incomplete for a tool with one parameter and an output schema that is not referenced. It lacks information about how to query (e.g., whether RUT is required), what happens if omitted, and why this tool would be chosen over similar alternatives. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but usage and parameter behavior are still missing.

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 optional parameter 'rut' with a pattern but no description, and the description does not explain how to use it. The description lists RUT as an output field, not as an input query parameter, creating ambiguity. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify the parameter meaning but fails to do so.

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 the tool provides identification data of an issuer (razón social, RUT, inscripción, actividad) from the CMF ficha, tab 1. It specifies the resource and the type of data, distinguishing it somewhat from similar sibling tools by referencing the specific source and tab, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 like cmf_empresa_por_ticker or cmf_buscar_entidad. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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