Tomas de control de emisores

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond what annotations already state (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It does not mention the optional 'orden' parameter, output format, or any other behavioral trait, so it contributes nothing beyond structured metadata.

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 extremely brief but under-specified. While it is short, it does not earn its place because it provides no actionable information; it is more of a label than a useful description.

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?

Even though the tool is simple with one optional parameter and has an output schema, the description fails to deliver complete context. It does not explain the parameter's effect, what data is returned, or how it fits with sibling tools, leaving gaps that an agent cannot resolve.

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 input schema contains one parameter 'orden' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description also fails to explain what 'orden' does or how it affects results, leaving the parameter's semantics completely opaque.

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 'Información sobre tomas de control de emisores de valores' is a noun phrase that essentially restates the title with 'Información sobre' and adds 'de valores'. It lacks a specific verb or action (e.g., 'get', 'search'), making it a tautology rather than a clear purpose statement.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling CMF tools. The description gives no context about intended use cases, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any direction for tool selection.

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