Canastas básicas (CBA/CBT) y canasta de crianza

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new context: the INDEC_API_TOKEN requirement, the default of returning only the latest period when no range is supplied, and the different data start dates for the two basket families.

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 front-loaded with the resource and its scope, followed by the default behavior and the auth requirement; it is dense but every clause carries information, with only slight compression cost in the long opening sentence.

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 nine-parameter, read-only query tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, defaults and auth adequately, though it could say more about what a returned row contains or how pagination fields behave.

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 coverage is 89%, so parameters are already well documented; the description only reinforces the desde/hasta default and implicitly distinguishes the canasta values by their coverage periods, adding little beyond the schema text.

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 names the exact indicators (Canasta Básica Alimentaria and Total for GBA, per adult equivalent and per household type since 2016, plus the crianza basket by age bracket since 2020) with their variations, which is specific enough to separate it from siblings like indec_ipc or indec_pobreza without opening a schema.

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?

It gives a useful default behavior ('Sin desde/hasta devuelve el último mes') and the auth prerequisite, but never says when to pick this tool over sibling indicator tools or when the crianza basket is the appropriate choice.

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