Comisiones y remuneraciones de FM

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds no behavioral context such as return format, pagination, rate limits, or access constraints, but given the annotations cover the safety profile, this is adequate though not enriching.

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 short sentence with no filler, immediately stating the core subject. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

For a 5-parameter, 0-required query tool, the one-line description leaves the agent without enough information to construct a query or understand parameter conventions. Although an output schema exists and may cover return values, period selection, moneda codes, and differentiation from sibling tools are missing, making the tool under-specified.

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 only 40% (admin and tipo_fondo have brief descriptions), and the description does not explain the meaning of mes, anio, moneda, or the special enum values like '$$', 'PROM', and 'EUR'. The phrase 'por fondo/serie' provides domain context but does not map to parameter usage, so the description fails to compensate for the low schema 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 identifies the resource as the fee structure for mutual funds, listing placement commissions, administration fees, and operating expenses, which distinguishes it from broader sibling tools like cmf_fondos_mutuos_costos or cmf_fondos_comisiones_maximas. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'list', making it a noun phrase rather than a clear action statement.

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 closely related siblings like cmf_fondos_mutuos_costos or cmf_fondos_comisiones_maximas. The description does not mention required filters, date ranges, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without selection criteria.

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