Resoluciones cursadas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral scope ('meses anteriores') but does not disclose pagination, response size, or rate limits. No contradiction with 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 a single, efficient sentence with no redundant wording. However, it is under-specified for tool selection, which slightly detracts from its overall structure effectiveness.

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 is simple (one optional boolean parameter), but the description does not explain the entity scope, what 'resoluciones cursadas' specifically means, or how it differs from similar tools in the sibling list. The output schema exists, but selection context is insufficient.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with a detailed description for 'historico'. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so baseline 3 is appropriate per the schema coverage rules.

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 resource ('resoluciones cursadas') and scope ('recientes e históricas'), but lacks an explicit action verb like 'list' or 'get'. It does not differentiate from siblings such as cmf_resoluciones_globales or cmf_sanciones_cursadas, making it ambiguous what unique tool this is.

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 like cmf_resoluciones_globales. The historico parameter hints at different use cases (recent vs full history), but the description itself offers no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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