Cartera de inversiones de seguros (C.1835)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context (e.g., pagination, entity-type filtering, what each row represents), providing no extra value beyond the title.

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?

Single, front-loaded Spanish sentence with no filler; it efficiently names the resource and regulatory reference. Perfectly sized.

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?

With an output schema and safe-read annotations, the core return format is covered, but the description is too sparse to guide correct selection among similar insurance-related tools. The ambiguous tipoentidad parameter and lack of usage guidance are significant gaps.

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 description does not explain the parameters, particularly tipoentidad, whose CSGEN value is not mentioned in the 'vida/reaseguradoras' description. Schema covers limit/offset (67% coverage), but the enum parameter remains ambiguous, and the description fails to clarify its role.

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 the investment portfolio of life insurance companies/reinsurers under Circular 1835. It distinguishes from sibling insurance tools (siniestros, eeff, rentas vitalicias) by its specific subject matter, though it lacks an explicit action verb like 'returns' or 'lists'.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling cmf_seguros_* tools. It neither states prerequisites nor excludes alternatives, leaving the agent to infer applicability solely from the resource name.

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