Visor de taxonomía XBRL

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds that it provides 'estructura de etiquetas' (label structure), which is some behavioral context, but does not describe output format, pagination, or any constraints beyond what the schema shows.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose with no redundant words, making it appropriately concise and front-loaded.

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?

The tool has just two required parameters, both well-defined in the schema, and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. The description adequately covers the tool's function, though it would be improved by noting its relationship to the sibling taxonomy tools.

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 schema has coverage for 'fecha' with an example and the 'taxonomia' parameter is defined by an enum, so the schema does most of the work. The description mentions both parameters ('por taxonomía y fecha de versión') but does not add details about value meanings or interactions, so it offers marginal added value.

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 the verb 'Navega' (navigates) and specifies the resource as an XBRL taxonomy from CMF, with scope of label structure by taxonomy and version date. This is clear and specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cmf_xbrl_taxonomias or cmf_xbrl_consulta, so a 4 rather than 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cmf_xbrl_taxonomias or cmf_xbrl_consulta. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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