Sanciones cursadas del mes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that it is monthly and supports market filtering, but it does not explain 'portada de sanciones' or any pagination or formatting behavior. 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 sentence with no fluff, but the phrase 'portada de sanciones' is ambiguous. It is concise and front-loaded, but could be clearer.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. However, the description lacks context on what 'cursadas' means specifically and does not explain the market codes, making it minimally complete for a simple tool.

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 single parameter 'mercado' is self-explanatory and the description reinforces 'por mercado'. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the enum values V, O, S are not explained, leaving some ambiguity about what each market code represents.

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 tool's purpose: retrieving monthly processed sanctions and a sanctions cover by market. The resource and scope are clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like cmf_sanciones_globales.

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. The description simply states what it does without any context on prerequisites, exclusions, or which sibling tool to choose for different scenarios.

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