Hechos esenciales globales

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context about the captcha: if no captcha is provided, the tool responds with an input request for the agent to ask the user, and notes that the captcha is a 6-character image. This goes beyond annotation data and helps the agent anticipate interactive behavior.

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 three sentences long and front-loads the main purpose. Each sentence adds information: the core function, the captcha requirement and interactive behavior, and the captcha's format. It is concise but could be slightly tighter with wording, yet remains effective.

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 5-parameter schema with all optional fields and an output schema present, so return structure is covered. However, the description omits details such as date range semantics, meaning of market codes (V, O, S), and acceptable entity types. The captcha flow is well explained, but the other parameters are left ambiguous, creating gaps for an agent trying to make optimal use of the tool.

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 only 20%, with only 'captcha' having a description. The description explains the captcha parameter in detail but leaves 'desde', 'hasta', 'mercado', and 'tipoentidad' unexplained. The phrase 'o de un tipo de entidad' hints at 'tipoentidad' but does not specify valid values or usage, so the description does not compensate adequately for 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 clearly states that the tool provides 'hechos esenciales' for the entire market or by entity type, which conveys its main function and scope. It distinguishes itself from entity-specific tools like cmf_empresa_hechos by emphasizing 'globales' and 'todo el mercado', though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: it is for querying global market facts, possibly filtered by entity type. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like cmf_sanciones_globales or cmf_empresa_hechos. The captcha requirement is a practical usage constraint but not a usage guideline.

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