Catálogo de Fondos de Inversión

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 search scope (by name or RUT) and the CMF supervision aspect, but does not disclose other behaviors like pagination or result format beyond the schema-provided limit/offset parameters.

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 with no filler. It conveys the core purpose and search capability in an efficient manner, making it highly scannable.

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 appears simple, with annotations and an output schema covering the return structure. The description provides necessary context about the fund type and search fields, though it doesn't mention pagination or result limits explicitly—but those are represented in the schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward catalog search.

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?

Input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that the 'consulta' parameter accepts a name or RUT of the administrator, which enriches the schema's generic 'Nombre o RUT a buscar' description.

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 provides a catalog of investment funds supervised by the CMF, with search by name or administrator RUT. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cmf_fondos_mutuos_catalogo by explicitly specifying 'fondos de inversión' and the search criteria.

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 searching investment funds via name or RUT, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. While the context is clear enough for a simple catalog lookup, there's no direct comparison to similar catalog tools.

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