Fechas de divulgación de EEFF

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

The annotations already declare the operation as read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds no additional behavioral context such as optionality of the year, output format, or scope (e.g., all companies vs. a specific one). The phrase 'por año' merely echoes the schema parameter anio and provides no new insight.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words, making it easy to read. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.

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?

Although the tool is simple and has annotations and an output schema, the description lacks important context about the scope of the calendar (whether it is global or per-entity) and the effect of the optional year parameter. Given the availability of structured metadata, it remains minimally complete but has clear 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is expected to compensate, but it only vaguely references 'por año' without explaining the parameter's format, optionality, or behavior when omitted. The schema already defines 'anio' as a 4-digit pattern, so the description adds minimal semantic value beyond what the parameter name implies.

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 defines the tool as a calendar of financial statement disclosure dates organized by year, clearly identifying the resource it provides. However, it lacks an explicit action verb (e.g., 'list' or 'get') and does not directly differentiate itself from other CMF EEFF-related tools, though the specific subject matter is distinct.

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 compared to the many sibling tools, such as cmf_empresa_eeff or cmf_eeff_ifrs_sa. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the use case from the title.

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