Indicadores financieros NCH de SA

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the name, such as data scope, pagination, limitations, or expected output. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 extremely short, but it reads as a fragment rather than a structured explanation. It is not verbose, but it is under-specified, resembling a title more than a functional description that guides invocation.

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 5 parameters, a rich sibling context, and a generic description, the description is inadequate for an agent to understand what the tool does, when to use it, or how to invoke it correctly. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of input guidance and tool-selection context.

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% and the description gives no explanation of the parameters (mes1, mes2, anio1, anio2, sociedades). The agent receives no help in understanding how to set these values, and the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of semantic detail.

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 states the subject matter ('financial indicators under Chilean corporate standards') but lacks a specific verb or resource. It essentially restates the tool name and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like cmf_indicadores_financieros_sa or cmf_empresa_eeeff_nch.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description is purely declarative without any contextual direction for selecting among the many related CMF tools.

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