Afp Comisiones

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior: results are percentages, there is a default period, and the default is the last published period.

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 short and front-loads what data is returned, then the common use cases, then the parameter format. The only wasted or harmful sentence is the reference to «columnas», which does not correspond to a schema field.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, usage examples, and default period behavior. The phantom «columnas» reference is a notable completeness flaw but does not prevent correct use of the actual periodo parameter.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description properly compensates for the single real parameter by explaining periodo as an «AAAA-MM» devengue period and stating the default. However, it also mentions «columnas», which is not present in the input schema and could mislead an agent into passing an invalid argument.

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 names the exact resource and measures: commission on balance, insurance premium, mandatory contribution, and total deduction per AFP in percentages. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like afp_rentabilidad or afp_valor_cuota by focusing on fees/deductions rather than returns or quota values.

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?

It gives concrete example questions such as «¿qué AFP cobra menos?» and «¿cuánto me descuentan del sueldo?», making the intended use clear. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or point to an alternative sibling, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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