Boletines mensuales del sistema de Fondos Mutuos

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 that it returns a summary per section rather than full details, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not disclose other traits like default section selection or row limits.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core value proposition, and includes a practical pointer to alternative tools. No wasted words, appropriately sized for an aggregation tool.

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 has a moderate parameter set (4 params, none required) and an output schema, so the description need not detail return values. However, it omits important invocation details such as that secciones is an array with specific allowed values, that max_filas caps rows per section, and how month/year defaults behave. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies some content types (BPR, costos, comisiones, inversiones) but does not explain the mes/anio format, the full set of secciones enum values, or the meaning/effect of max_filas. This is insufficient given the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 provides a single call for monthly mutual fund bulletins (patrimonio/rentabilidad, costos, comisiones, inversiones), and distinguishes itself from the individual sibling tools by offering a summary per section. Though the verb is implicit, the scope and aggregation behavior are concrete.

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 explicitly says to use the individual tools for full detail, implying this tool is for aggregate summaries. This provides direct comparison with alternatives, though it could be more explicit about exactly when to prefer this over the separate tools (e.g., 'when you need multiple sections in one call').

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