simel_list_dataflows

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, read-only operation with potentially incomplete results. The description adds value by specifying the domain (labor market indicators) and source system (SIMEL/INE.Stat), but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior that would be useful beyond the annotations.

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 that conveys the essential information without waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place by specifying what's listed, the domain, examples, and source system.

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 simple listing tool with good annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint) and 100% schema coverage, the description provides adequate context about what's being listed. However, without an output schema, the description doesn't explain what format the results will be in or what information each listed indicator includes. The complexity is low, so the description is mostly complete but could benefit from output format information.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the schema already fully documents the 'keyword' parameter with an example. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 verb ('Lista') and resource ('indicadores de mercado laboral') with specific examples (ENE, ESI) and source (SIMEL/INE.Stat). It distinguishes from siblings like 'simel_get_data' by focusing on listing available indicators rather than retrieving data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'inestat_list_dataflows' which appears to be a similar listing function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this listing function should be used instead of 'inestat_list_dataflows' or 'datos_search_datasets', nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for usage. The agent receives no comparative information about sibling tools.

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