Operaciones de capital (repartos, canjes, liberadas)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. However, the description adds no behavioral context such as date-range filtering, pagination, or response scope. It only lists operation categories, which does not meaningfully extend 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 this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks a clear action and simply lists examples. Every word restates the title, so no sentence earns its place. It does not front-load a purpose or provide structured guidance for the agent.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, enums, output schema) and the large number of sibling tools, the description is far too thin. It does not explain what data is returned, how to filter, or how this relates to other CMF tools. An agent cannot confidently select or correctly invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It fails to mention 'anio', 'tipo', or 'sociedades' at all. The enum for 'tipo' provides some implicit meaning, but the description gives no guidance on how to choose values or what the array 'sociedades' represents. The description adds zero value over the raw schema.

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 is a noun phrase listing capital operation types ('Repartos de capital, canje de acciones y acciones liberadas') with no explicit verb indicating the tool's action (e.g., retrieve, list, query). It restates the title's main idea and does not clarify whether the tool returns data, performs a calculation, or something else. While it distinguishes the topic from siblings, the lack of a verb makes the purpose vague.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are closely related siblings like cmf_dividendos and cmf_empresa_accionistas, but no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred contexts. An agent has no information about which scenarios this tool is best suited for.

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