Formulario de consulta XBRL

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true, indicating this operation has side effects. The description's 'Envía una consulta' aligns with this by implying an external submission, but it adds little beyond the annotation. It does not contradict the annotation, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that immediately conveys the tool's action and subject. It is efficient without unnecessary detail, though it lacks any structured breakdown of usage or parameters.

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?

For a simple form submission, the description is adequate to understand the core function, and an output schema exists to document return values. However, it omits any mention of prerequisites, delivery methods, or expected response time, leaving some contextual gaps for a tool with side effects.

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%, and the description provides no information about any of the five parameters. The parameter names like 'nombre', 'email', and 'mercado' are partially self-explanatory, but the description fails to clarify their purpose or required format, leaving the agent without added value beyond raw schema fields.

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 uses a specific verb ('Envía') and identifies the resource (a query to CMF about XBRL usage) and context (technical support). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools that fetch data, such as cmf_xbrl_taxonomias or cmf_xbrl_visor.

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 purpose implies it is used for technical support inquiries about XBRL, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. No alternative tools are referenced, leaving usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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