Paquete completo de una empresa (plan de descarga)

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it produces a plan (not data), enforces a 2-year worker limit, and returns normalized filenames. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads the core purpose and output, the second adds constraints and redirection. No wasted words; every phrase contributes value.

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 covers the essential behavioral contract (what is produced, the 2-year limit, no bytes) and points to the appropriate sibling for actual downloads. With an output schema present, the lack of detailed return-value documentation is acceptable. Minor gap: no mention of parameter defaults or how 'ventanas de años' maps to anio_inicio/anio_fin, but overall adequate.

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 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any parameter semantics. Terms like rut, tipo, norma, anio_inicio, anio_fin, secciones, and incluir_tablas are intuitive from their names and enums, but the description fails to add meaning or clarify edge cases (e.g., default values, interaction between anio_inicio and anio_fin).

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 explicitly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Arma') and a clear resource: a complete download plan (directory tree + document manifest) with normalized filenames. It distinguishes itself from the sibling cmf_empresa_paquete_documentos by clarifying it does not include bytes.

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?

Provides explicit usage boundaries: maximum 2 years per call with guidance to use successive year windows for longer history, and explicitly directs users to cmf_empresa_paquete_documentos when bytes are needed. This clearly states when to use this tool vs the alternative.

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