Mercado de trabajo (EPH)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the default window (last published quarter when no range is given) and the authentication requirement (INDEC_API_TOKEN). It does not describe the response shape or row layout, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the data scope before the filtering and default rules. Nothing is padded. The odd '20262T' period example is the one spot that costs a moment of decoding.

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 7-parameter, zero-required, read-only dataset tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, temporal coverage, accepted formats, default behavior and auth. What is missing is any indication of what a returned row contains — relevant since no output schema exists and 'columnas' takes arbitrary strings the agent cannot know in advance.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does add the key incremental detail that desde/hasta accept 'AAAA' or 'AAAA-N' with N as the quarter number, and gives the period example '20262T' — though this example format does not obviously match the 'AAAA-N' notation, and it is not stated for area, columnas, limit or offset. Net value over the schema is real but narrow.

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 enumerates exactly what this tool returns: activity, employment, formal/informal employment, unemployment and underemployment rates for the 31 agglomerations, quarterly from Q2 2016. That is specific enough to tell it apart from the other dataset-specific siblings (indec_ipc, inde_emae, inde_pobreza). It lacks an explicit action verb, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied through the filtering behavior ('Sin desde/hasta devuelve el último trimestre publicado'), which tells the agent what happens by default. However, it never says when to pick this tool over the generic inde_query_dataset / inde_describe_dataset siblings, nor any exclusions. The agent must infer the choice from the dataset subject matter alone.

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