Catálogo de Fondos Mutuos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the returned fields, the name filter, and pagination support. This goes beyond merely restating the read-only nature.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Catálogo completo...') and efficiently lists fields and capabilities. Every part earns its place with no 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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return structure. It adequately covers the tool's purpose, fields, and filtering/pagination. However, given the large sibling list, a brief mention of this being the entry point for obtaining fund identifiers (RUN fondo) for use in other fondos mutuos tools would have made it more complete.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the nombre filter and pagination (limit/offset) already present in the schema, without adding deeper semantics or examples.

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 it is the 'Catálogo completo de fondos mutuos de la CMF' and lists the specific fields included (RUT administradora, RUN fondo, nombre, tipo, moneda, fechas). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cmf_fondos_mutuos_cartera or cmf_fondos_mutuos_comisiones, which focus on specific data rather than the full catalog.

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?

It provides clear context that the tool is filterable by name and paginated, indicating when it should be used (for retrieving catalog data with optional filtering/pagination). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5.

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