Un indicador social del MIDES, con su ficha

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description earns credit for what it adds: the default data source (INE's Continuous Household Survey), the 2023-2024 freshness ceiling, and especially the data-quality traps in `avisos` (mixed total rows, single-year `parcial` maps, ficha/table mismatch). It stops short of saying what happens on a bad indicator name or whether `avisos` is always present.

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 purpose and return contents, then `filtro`, then the `avisos` warning — a sensible ordering with no filler. The middle sentence is a long parenthetical chain, but every clause carries operational information an agent needs.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description adds the interpretive layer the schema cannot: where the indicator name comes from, how to narrow rows, and how to read the warning field. For a two-parameter read tool this leaves no meaningful gap before invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load and largely does: `filtro` is defined as comma-separated dimension values with concrete examples ('Salto', 'Mujeres,Pobre'), and `indicador` is defined operationally as the name returned by `buscar_indicador_social`. What's missing is that `indicador` is required and whether values are case/accent-sensitive.

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?

Specific verb+resource (reads a MIDES Social Observatory indicator) plus an explicit inventory of what comes back: title, unit, calculation method, data source, and the dimension/period table. It even states the temporal coverage (2023-2024), so an agent knows exactly what artifact it gets and cannot confuse it with numeric siblings like `cotizacion` or `ipc_argentina`.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent through the sibling `buscar_indicador_social` to obtain the `indicador` value, which is the decisive precondition for a correct call. It also tells the agent what to do after the call (`Leer los avisos`), turning the description into a small workflow rather than a bare capability statement.

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