Clasificación de riesgo de seguros (RGCRI)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the context of 'reseñas' (reviews) and period-based filtering, but does not explain behavioral details like pagination, data range limits, or what 'reseñas' entails. It does not contradict 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 immediately states the tool's purpose. It is well-structured and front-loaded, with no wasted words.

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 description gives the core purpose and implies the period filter, but fails to provide usage differentiation or parameter details. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, but the description still feels thin for an agent selecting between many related tools.

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 does not explain the meaning or format of 'mes' and 'anio'. It only implies period filtering via 'por período', leaving the parameter semantics to the schema's property names and regex patterns.

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 as providing risk classification and reviews for insurance companies by period, which distinguishes it from the sibling cmf_clasificaciones_riesgo. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'lista' or 'obtiene', making the action implied rather than stated.

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 such as cmf_clasificaciones_riesgo or other seguro-specific tools. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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