inestat_list_dataflows

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds context about the return format ('con id y nombre') and the keyword filtering feature, which is useful beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral details like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination, which could be relevant for a listing tool.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence in Spanish that front-loads the core purpose and includes key details (listing dataflows with id and name, keyword filter). Every part contributes value without redundancy, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter), rich annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint), and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and basic usage. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on return values or behavior, but the annotations help mitigate this gap.

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%, with the parameter 'keyword' well-documented in the schema. The description mentions the keyword filter ('Soporta filtro por keyword') but doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage nuances. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Lista todos') and resource ('dataflows (datasets) disponibles en INE.Stat'), specifying what identifiers are returned ('con id y nombre'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'datos_search_datasets' or 'simel_list_dataflows', which appear to serve similar listing functions in different contexts.

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?

The description implies usage through the keyword filter capability ('Soporta filtro por keyword'), suggesting this tool is for listing with optional filtering. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'datos_search_datasets' or 'inestat_get_data', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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