Costo de la construcción (ICC)

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, closed-world query, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds real context beyond them by stating the series starts in nov-2015, which tells the agent the earliest valid range. It does not mention update cadence or that defaults fall back to the last 13 months, though the schema covers the latter.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the index, its geographic scope, its start date, and its breakdowns with no filler. The long trailing list is dense but each item corresponds to a real queryable dimension.

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 full parameter documentation, the description only needs to frame the dataset, which it does by naming scope, start date, and available breakdowns. Minor gaps remain (data publisher, monthly frequency) but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented with formats and defaults. The description's enumeration of categories loosely reinforces valid 'category' values, but the schema already gives concrete examples ('Albañilería', 'Pintura'), so little is added beyond the baseline.

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?

Names a specific index (ICC for Gran Buenos Aires) and enumerates the breakdowns it returns (nivel general, materiales, mano de obra, gastos generales, ítems de obra, materiales por producto), so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with near-neighbors such as inflation_series or wholesale_prices, which is the only thing keeping it from a 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to pick this over inflation_series, wholesale_prices, or compare_series when the question involves construction input costs. Usage is only inferable from the topic name.

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