Indicadores IFRS de intermediarios

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the domain label. It does not mention date-range semantics, filtering behavior, or what kind of output to expect, so the agent gains little beyond the structured 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 very short and free of fluff, but it is arguably an under-specified noun phrase that barely expands on the title. It is concise without being informative, so it earns a middle score rather than high marks for quality conciseness.

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 five optional parameters and no parameter documentation or usage guidance, the description is insufficient for correct tool selection and invocation. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, but the missing parameter semantics and selection criteria leave a significant gap.

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 provides no parameter explanations. The names mes1/mes2, anio1/anio2, and sociedades imply a date range and entity filter, but the tool description does not confirm or elaborate on these, leaving the agent to infer all invocation details.

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 identifies the resource as IFRS financial indicators and targets securities agents and stockbrokers, which differentiates it from sibling tools like cmf_intermediarios_eeff_ifrs or cmf_liquidez_intermediarios. Although it lacks a directive verb, the noun phrase conveys the tool's data domain with enough specificity.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cmf_intermediarios_eeff_ifrs, cmf_resultados_av_cb, or cmf_liquidez_intermediarios. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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