Patrimonio, rentabilidad y partícipes de FM

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 context about the report content (Boletín de Patrimonio y Rentabilidad) and that data is per mutual fund series, but does not disclose behaviors such as pagination, default date ranges, or handling of missing data.

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, information-dense sentence that avoids fluff and clearly lists the data points included. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 description names the data fields and the report type, and the output schema likely details the return structure. However, it does not explain the role of parameters or provide selection criteria among mutual fund sibling tools, so it is only moderately complete for an agent.

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% and the description provides no information about the three parameters (mes, anio, admin). The agent cannot determine the expected format or meaning of these parameters from either source, which is a critical gap.

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 mutual fund data (patrimony, variation, monthly nominal returns, participants, and quota value) by series, distinguishing it from sibling mutual fund tools that focus on cartera, comisiones, etc. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not name sibling tools or exclude use cases, leaving the agent to infer the tool's purpose from the field list alone.

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