Comisiones máximas 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 known. The description adds minimal behavioral context—'Informe' implies a read-only report, but it does not reveal whether this returns a list, a file, or how it behaves with different year inputs. No additional traits beyond annotations are disclosed.

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, grammatically complete sentence with no fluff. It is concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified, lacking essential details about parameters and usage, which makes it less helpful than a more complete but still concise description.

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 one optional parameter and an output schema, but the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain the year filtering capability or how to interpret the report. Given the richness of the sibling context, more contextual guidance is needed to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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%, and the description does not mention the 'anio' parameter at all. Without any explanation of the year field's purpose or accepted values beyond the regex pattern, the agent has no semantic guidance for using the parameter.

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 provides a report of maximum commissions applicable to investment funds ('Informe de comisiones máximas aplicables a fondos de inversión'). It uses a specific verb ('Informe') and resource, and the tool name distinguishes it from sibling tools like cmf_fondos_mutuos_comisiones. However, it does not explicitly contrast with similar commission tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is a single declarative sentence with no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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