Sanciones 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 safety profile is covered. The description adds the date-range scoping and the issuer-specific focus, but does not discuss authentication, pagination, or response details. This modest extra context merits a 3.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the content and scope, making it efficient and front-loaded.

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 a simple read-only purpose with three optional parameters and an output schema. The description is enough for basic understanding, but lacks clarity on parameter optionality and how to exclude dates, which leaves some gaps.

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. It mentions 'rango de fechas' which suggests the desde/hasta parameters are dates, and 'emisor' implies rut identifies the issuer, but it never explicitly ties the parameters together. The compensation is thin.

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 that the tool returns sanctions applied to an issuer ('emisor') within a date range. The phrase 'a un emisor' distinguishes it from global sanctions tools like cmf_sanciones_globales, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or use a verb.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as cmf_sanciones_globales or cmf_sanciones_cursadas. It only describes what it returns, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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