Buscar Series

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the AND-matching semantics across category/group/name and the fallback when the result set is empty. It repeats the return fields that the output schema already documents, which is redundant rather than harmful.

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?

Front-loaded with the core matching rule, then examples, then the failure-recovery tip — a sensible order an agent can scan. The five-example list is slightly longer than needed and the sentence restating returned fields duplicates the output schema.

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 read-only search over a large catalog, the description covers query construction, filtering, and empty-result handling, and an output schema exists so return shape need not be spelled out. The only real omissions are the undocumented `limite` parameter and any hint that the returned code should be fed to the sibling `serie`.

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 0%, so the description has to carry the load and largely does: it explains `texto` as an all-words-must-match search and enumerates valid `frecuencia` values that the schema itself declares only as a bare string. The third parameter, `limite` (default 10), is never mentioned, leaving that gap to the schema's default value alone.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Busca series del BCRP") and even specifies the matching rule — all words must appear in category, group, or name — which is far more precise than the title alone. It never distinguishes itself from the sibling `serie` (singular), so an agent gets no explicit routing signal about which of the two to pick.

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 five concrete query examples and the accepted frequency values, plus an explicit recovery strategy ("Si no hay resultados, prueben con menos palabras"), which tells the agent how to retry rather than guess. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool or naming `serie` / `resumen` as the alternative once a code is known.

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