Resoluciones de la entidad

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is established. The description adds the date-range scoping and the 'pestanía 37' context, but does not disclose behavior about optional parameters or pagination. 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, front-loaded sentence that is free of any filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose.

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 tool has three parameters with no descriptions in the schema and an ambiguous 'pestanía 37' reference. The description does not address the optionality of parameters or the relationship to sibling resolution tools, making it under-specified for fully correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds high-level meaning by identifying 'emisor' (rut) and 'rango de fechas' (desde/hasta). However, it does not clarify that all parameters are optional or explain how the date range boundaries are applied, leaving 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 identifies the tool as providing CMF resolutions about a specific issuer within a date range, distinguishing it from global resolution tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'get', relying instead on a noun phrase.

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 phrase 'sobre un emisor' implies the tool is intended for issuer-specific resolution queries, which offers some contrast to global resolution tools like cmf_resoluciones_globales. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions.

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