Actas de juntas de accionistas

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 covered. The description adds the scope of meeting types and the reference to 'pestanías 78-80' (tabs 78-80), but this is more contextual than behavioral. It does not disclose pagination, date-range behavior, or response format, but the output schema likely covers return structure. No contradiction with annotations.

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 of about 15 words, front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains no redundant phrases or filler, making it highly concise and 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is too sparse to be fully self-sufficient. It does not explain the meaning or expected input of date parameters, nor does it clarify the 'pestanías 78-80' reference. While the output schema exists and annotations are provided, the overall lack of usage and parameter guidance leaves the description incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. It indirectly maps to the 'tipo' parameter by listing the meeting types, but it does not explain 'rut', 'desde', or 'hasta'. Without explicit parameter details, an agent would have to infer that 'desde'/'hasta' are date filters or that 'rut' is the issuer identifier, which is a significant gap.

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 is for 'Actas de juntas de accionistas' (shareholder meeting minutes) and specifies the types: ordinary, extraordinary, and statute reform. It identifies the resource as belonging to an issuer, which distinguishes it from generic meeting record tools. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', and does not directly contrast with sibling tools.

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 alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools (e.g., cmf_empresa_hechos for material events). The only implicit hint is the inclusion of meeting types, which may suggest usage for those specific cases, but there is no explicit instruction or context.

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