Cuadros de resultados (AV/CB y emisores NCH)

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds context about the two available categories (AV/CB and NCH issuers) but does not disclose other behaviors such as pagination, date ranges, or output structure. 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 a single concise sentence that directly states the resource. It contains no filler, repetition, or extraneous details.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, read-only, output schema present), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage guidance and explicit parameter documentation, leaving some gaps for agents unfamiliar with the domain.

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 schema has one parameter 'tipo' with an enum, but no parameter descriptions. The tool description mentions both categories, which helps interpret the enum values, but it never explicitly ties the parameter to those categories. With zero schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates.

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: result tables for securities agents/stockbrokers and issuers under NCH. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the exact scope. Although it lacks a verb, the noun phrase effectively communicates the tool's output.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, related tools, or prerequisites. The intended use is only implicit from the domain-specific phrasing.

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