Índice de salarios

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the INDEC_API_TOKEN auth requirement and the default last-available-month behavior. It goes no further, though — nothing about pagination semantics, response shape, or rate limits.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what the index covers and its base period, followed by the default behavior and auth requirement. No filler; only the parenthetical format details risk feeling compressed.

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 an 8-parameter, all-optional read tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the two things the schema cannot: the data's temporal extent and the token prerequisite. What remains thin is routing guidance relative to the many sibling INDEC tools, which would complete the picture.

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%, and the enum/format details for tipo, desde, hasta, limit, orden, offset and columnas are already fully documented there. The description contributes only the temporal coverage window ('desde nov-2015') and restates the no-range default already present in the desde/hasta schema text, so it adds little beyond 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?

States a specific resource and scope: the salary index by sector (registered private, unregistered, public) with variations, plus the index base (oct-2016=100). An agent can tell this is the domain-specific salary series, distinct from indec_ipc or indec_emae, though it never explicitly names a sibling to distinguish itself from indec_query_dataset.

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?

Implies usage through the default-behavior note ('Sin desde/hasta devuelve el último mes') and the auth prerequisite, so an agent knows it can call it bare for the latest month. However there is no explicit when-to-use versus indec_query_dataset or indec_aggregate, and no exclusions or guidance on combining tipo values.

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