EEFF de compañías de seguros

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

Annotations already cover safety with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it covers period-based data for general or life insurance companies, but it does not disclose output format, pagination, or any filtering behavior, so the additional context is minimal.

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 with no filler and front-loads the main subject. However, it is perhaps too sparse for a tool with six parameters, but conciseness itself is well-handled.

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?

Despite having annotations and an output schema, the description does not explain how to construct a period range or what the 'sociedades' parameter does. For a 6-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description is not complete enough.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only hints at period ('por período') and type ('generales o de vida'), leaving mes1/mes2/anio1/anio2 semantics and the 'sociedades' filter undocumented.

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 as financial statements (FECU) of insurance companies and scopes it to general or life insurers by period. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cmf_empresa_eeff, but it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'obtener' or 'listar'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cmf_empresa_eeff or other cmf_seguros_* tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references are given; usage is only implied by the resource type.

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