Transacciones Art. 12 Ley 18.045

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context—it merely restates the title and does not mention pagination (despite limit/offset params) or any other operational traits, offering no additional value beyond structured data.

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, succinct sentence that directly states the tool's subject. It wastes no words and is easy to scan, though it could arguably be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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 present and only two pagination parameters, the tool is relatively simple. The description covers the core purpose but omits any indication of the result format, pagination behavior, or specific use cases, making it minimally sufficient but not complete.

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?

Both parameters (limit and offset) are fully described in the input schema with clear meanings and constraints, so high schema coverage gives a baseline of 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details, but this is acceptable given the schema already handles them.

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 transactions of insurance companies under Article 12 of Ley 18.045, which is a specific resource and distinct from sibling tools covering other securities market data. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'list' or 'get', reducing clarity slightly.

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. It neither mentions the specific use case (e.g., retrieving insider transaction data) nor names any sibling tools to consider instead, leaving the agent without direction.

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