Cartera de inversiones de Fondos Mutuos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which covers safety. The description adds context about the monthly scope and the Circular 1333 column codes, but it does not disclose behaviors such as pagination, rate limits, or what happens if the optional month/year filters are omitted. This is moderate added value.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core resource and provides the key breakdown of portfolio types. Every phrase earns its place with no redundant or filler content.

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 output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description does not explain how this tool differs from other fondos mutuos tools, nor does it address the optional mes/anio parameters. For a simple read-only tool this is adequate but incomplete for an agent to confidently select it among siblings.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented mes and anio parameters. It mentions 'por mes' and repeats the cartera enum values, but it does not clarify the role or optionality of mes/anio. This is a partial, not full, compensation for the low coverage.

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 resource (Cartera de inversiones de fondos mutuos) and the time dimension (por mes), as well as the specific types of portfolios (nacional, extranjera, opciones, etc.). Although it lacks an explicit verb like 'obtener' or 'listar', the intent is unambiguous and it is distinct from sibling tools like catálogo or inversiones.

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 this tool is for retrieving monthly mutual fund portfolio data by type, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as cmf_fondos_mutuos_inversiones or cmf_fondos_mutuos_cartola. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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