Comisiones máximas para fondos de pensiones/cesantía

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

Beyond the readOnly annotation, the description reveals that the tool returns monthly XLS documents by administrator, informing the agent about output format and granularity. It also names the specific circulars, adding regulatory context. This is useful but does not cover pagination or download mechanics.

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, compact sentence that packs key information: purpose, scope, regulatory basis, output format, frequency, and granularity. It is well-structured and front-loaded, with no 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?

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, data coverage, and output characteristics. It lacks explicit details about optional year filtering or how to handle returned XLS documents, but these are reasonable gaps for a query tool with a rich schema.

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 description explicitly relates the 'circular' parameter to Circulars 1951 and 1965, and the 'tipo' parameter to mutual funds and investment funds. However, the 'anio' parameter is not described in words, only implied by the monthly documents context. With 0% schema description coverage, this partial compensation is helpful but not complete.

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 maximum commissions that mutual funds and investment funds can charge to pension (Circular 1951) and severance (Circular 1965) funds. It specifies the exact resource and scope, distinguishing it from general commission tools by the regulatory circulars and pension/cesantía context.

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 implies the tool is for querying maximum commissions in the pension/cesantía context but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over sibling tools like cmf_fondos_mutuos_comisiones or cmf_fondos_inversion_comisiones_maximas. There are no clear exclusions or alternative references, so the usage guidance is only implicit.

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