Registro de Depósito de Pólizas (seguros)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: unfiltered queries return the entire registry, and exportar=true triggers a large official XLSX download. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent useful expectations about result size and export behavior.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then a caution about scale, then the export alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a 9-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description covers core purpose, the full-dataset caveat, and export mode. It could mention pagination parameters (limit/offset) explicitly, but the phrase 'use filtros o paginación' gives enough hint. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 78% (7 of 9 params). The description adds context about the registry's content (e.g., 'temas y norma') which maps to the 'tema' and 'norma' parameters, and clarifies the exportar option. However, it does not explain the undefined 'desde'/'hasta' date parameters beyond implying date filtering, leaving a small gap that the schema's pattern partially covers.

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 action ('Busca en el Registro de Depósito de Pólizas de la CMF') and specifies the domain (mercado de seguros). It lists the key returned fields (código, fecha, aseguradora, texto, temas, norma) and distinguishes it from sibling insurance tools by naming the specific registry and NCG 124/349.

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 gives practical usage context: warns that no filters return the full ~7,000 records and advises using filters or pagination. It also explains the exportar=true mode for downloading the official XLSX. It does not explicitly compare with alternative sibling tools, but the domain-specific naming and clear workflow guidance are strong.

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