Buscar empresa por ticker (NEMO)

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds context by detailing the data source (catálogo de empresas-cmf-chile) and the specific return fields (RUT, razón social, ISIN, tipo de entidad, norma, inicio IFRS), which goes 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 concise (three sentences), front-loaded with the verb and resource, includes concrete examples, and packs in return fields and use case without wasted words.

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 annotations and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, data source, return values, and a typical use case. The only minor omission is clarification of the 'term' parameter, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 coverage is 67% (2 of 3 params have descriptions). The description reinforces that 'consulta' is the ticker/name parameter but does not clarify the ambiguous 'term' parameter or the 'limite' parameter's purpose. It adds some context but does not fully compensate for the schema gaps.

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's function: 'Busca una empresa chilena por su ticker de bolsa' with specific examples (COPEC, SQM-B). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it returns RUT, razón social, ISIN, etc., and explicitly mentions its use for translating tickers to RUT before querying other data.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Ideal para traducir tickers a RUT antes de consultar EEFF, hechos, etc.' This implies when to use it relative to other cmf_empresa_* tools. While it doesn't name alternative tools explicitly, the intended workflow is evident.

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