metadatos_indicador

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It partially meets it: it discloses the concrete fields returned and that the input accepts either a catalog key or a numeric INEGI ID, but it says nothing about behavior on an invalid/nonexistent indicator, whether output is a single record, or the fact that this is a pure read (inferred rather than stated).

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 very short blocks with zero filler, and the returned-field list is front-loaded. Minor structural weakness: there is no verb at all — 'Ficha de un indicador' is a noun phrase — and the raw 'Args:' docstring formatting is slightly out of place alongside the prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out (though the description helpfully does). For a single-param, read-only metadata lookup this is nearly sufficient; the only real gap is the missing pointer to the sibling that supplies valid catalog keys.

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 largely does: it defines 'indicador' as a catalog key OR a numeric INEGI ID, which is the single most important disambiguation for the only parameter. It falls short of saying where catalog keys come from (presumably indicadores_clave) or what an ID looks like.

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 precisely what the tool returns: the metadata sheet for an indicator (official name, unit, frequency, source, covered period), which is a concrete, verifiable scope. However, it never contrasts with close siblings like consultar_indicador (likely the data-values counterpart) or indicadores_clave (likely where keys come from), so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied through the noun phrase 'Ficha de un indicador' — an agent can infer 'use this for metadata, not for values', but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of consultar_indicador, and no note that the catalog key should be obtained from indicadores_clave first.

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