Antecedentes generales del sistema FM

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the data is a historical annual series as of December and lists the included metrics, but it does not disclose parameter optionality, default behavior when anio is omitted, or pagination/result format.

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 that efficiently conveys the resource, the historical nature, and the key fields with no filler or redundancy.

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 is simple (one optional parameter, output schema present) and the description covers the core data content and time dimension. Minor gaps remain around the optional anio behavior, but the description is otherwise sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the data are year-end values ('por diciembre de cada año'), which aligns with the anio parameter, but it never explicitly states that anio filters by year or that omitting it returns the full series.

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 identifies a specific resource and scope: 'Serie histórica de antecedentes generales del sistema de fondos mutuos' and enumerates the exact data fields (número de administradoras, fondos, patrimonio total y partícipes). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual fund catalogs, portfolios, or fees.

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 usage for retrieving aggregate historical mutual fund system indicators, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as cmf_fondos_mutuos_catalogo or cmf_fondos_mutuos_cartera, nor does it mention exclusions or that the anio parameter is optional.

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