IPI — Índice de producción industrial (manufacturero y minero)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the INDEC_API_TOKEN requirement and the default last-period behavior, but it says nothing about pagination flow, rate limits, or response size, which matter for a 10-parameter open-world data tool.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the dataset identity and variants, then the default-range rule and the auth requirement. The base-year parentheticals are dense but each carries selection-relevant information; no filler sentences.

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?

Covers dataset identity, defaults, and auth, which is most of what an agent needs for a filtered time-series query. But with no output schema, the description never says what comes back (rows, columns, siguiente_offset for paging) — that paging detail only leaks through the offset parameter description — and the generic-vs-specific sibling choice is left unaddressed.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns an extra point by explaining the base-year switch tied to the rama enum and the series options — both of which the schema lists as bare enums without descriptions. It still adds nothing about actividad, columnas, or how tipo interacts with rama (unidades_fisicas only in minero is only noted in the schema).

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 the specific dataset (IPI manufacturero base 2004=100 desde 2016; minero base 2016=100 desde 2017) and the three series variants, which is far more specific than a tautology and implicitly separates it from siblings like indec_ipc or indec_emae. It never states an explicit action verb (list/query/fetch) and never disambiguates from the generic indec_query_dataset, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Gives one genuinely useful usage rule: omitting desde/hasta returns only the latest month, which tells the agent how to get a snapshot. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over the generic indec_query_dataset/indec_aggregate siblings, and no note on which rama/serie combinations are valid together.

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