consultar_indicador

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses useful behavior such as the default national area and the 1–120 observation range, and 'Consulta' implies a read operation, but it does not state permissions, error behavior, 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then uses a structured Args section. The examples and constraints are useful and there is no wasted text.

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 three-parameter query tool with a required indicator and an output schema, the description covers all parameters and their formats well enough to call it correctly. The main missing piece is explicit routing guidance against sibling tools.

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 must compensate, and it does: it explains the indicator key/ID formats, all accepted area formats with examples, the default national scope, and the observation count range and direction.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: consult the most recent value or series of an INEGI indicator. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as metadatos_indicador or comparar_areas.

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 explains the parameters but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like comparar_areas, indicadores_clave, or metadatos_indicador. Usage is only implied by the word 'Consulta'.

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