Consultar un dataset (genérico)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: a 1000-row page cap, automatic ordering by the full primary key when order is omitted (for stable pagination), and the exact-total behavior of count=true. It stops short of rate limits or error behavior, 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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information: capabilities, page cap, ordering default, count behavior, auth requirement. The pagination constraint is front-loaded and there is no redundant restatement of the name.

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, open-world read tool with no output schema and partial schema coverage, the description covers pagination, ordering and auth but omits the discovery path (listing datasets, describing columns referenced by the schema's filter/column field). An agent can invoke it, but must look elsewhere to learn how to find valid dataset/column values.

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 only 43%, so several parameters (limit, offset, order.dir) arrive undocumented from the schema. The description compensates for part of that gap by explaining the 1000-row page maximum, the primary-key ordering default and count=true, but offset semantics and multi-column ordering remain unaddressed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Consulta cualquier dataset") plus the capabilities it bundles: select, filters, order, pagination. It is clear what the tool does generically, but it never names or contrasts with siblings such as indec_aggregate, indec_distinct_values or the topic-specific shortcuts (indec_ipc, indec_pobreza), so differentiation is left implicit.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given: nothing says to prefer this over indec_aggregate for grouping or indec_list_datasets/indec_describe_dataset to discover datasets and column names. The one routing-relevant statement, that count=true returns the exact total, actually overlaps with the sibling indec_count_rows without clarifying which to pick.

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