Producción de corredores de seguros

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 only the ISPRO system reference and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, default filtering, data interpretation, or return characteristics. The added value beyond annotations 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 sentence, so it is concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified rather than appropriately informative; it mainly repeats the title. It earns a score of 3 because it is brief but not effectively structured to convey key information.

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?

Given the tool has 3 optional parameters and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'producción' means, what data is returned, how to use the parameters, or how this tool relates to the ISPRO system. It is inadequate for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret results.

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 adds no parameter information. The schema covers limit and offset with descriptions, but tipoentidad lacks a description; the enum values (CSJUR, CSGEN, CSVID) are not explained. With 67% schema coverage and no compensating description, the agent gets limited semantic clarity.

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 is essentially a restatement of the title: 'Producción de corredores de seguros' repeats the title verbatim. The only addition is '(sistema ISPRO)', which identifies the source system but does not clarify what the tool does (e.g., list, query, report). It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like cmf_seguros_siniestros or cmf_seguros_eeff.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of typical use cases, and no exclusions. The description provides no context to help an agent select this tool over other insurance-related tools.

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