Precios mayoristas (SIPM: IPIM, IPIB, IPP)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the historical boundary of the data (desde dic-2015), the default single-period fallback when no range is given, and the INDEC_API_TOKEN requirement. It does not describe the shape of the returned rows (pagination fields, siguiente_offset), but the annotations carry most of the remaining burden.

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 tight sentences: scope and content first, default behavior second, auth requirement last. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated.

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 9-parameter read-only query tool with full schema coverage, no required params and no output schema, the description gives the essential induction: what the indices are, the temporal floor, the default window, and the token requirement. The remaining gap is result-shape/pagination behavior, which the schema partly covers via offset's 'usar siguiente_offset' note.

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 100%, with enums for tipo and orden fully documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no semantics the schema lacks — it echoes the 'all types' and 'last month if no range' behavior that 'tipo' and 'desde/hasta' already state — and says nothing about limit/offset/columnas usage.

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 resource (INDEC wholesale price index system: IPIM, IPIB, IPP) and what it returns (index levels, variations, incidences) with an explicit coverage window (since Dec-2015). That is well beyond a restatement of the name, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with sibling indec_ipc (consumer prices) or indec_ipi, leaving the agent to infer the wholesale-vs-consumer split.

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 useful behavioral rule of thumb ('Sin desde/hasta devuelve el último mes') and states the auth prerequisite, which implicitly tells the agent this is a ready-to-call data query. It still offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance against the many siblings (indec_ipc, indec_ipi, indec_query_dataset) that an agent must disambiguate between.

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