Afp Rentabilidad

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds real domain context: what anualizada vs acumulada means and the default behaviour for plazo and periodo. Return format is left to the output schema, which exists, so this is nearly complete.

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?

It leads with the purpose, then usage examples, then parameter semantics — a sensible front-loaded order. It is a dense run-on paragraph in Spanish, but every clause (metric, examples, param meanings, defaults) earns its place.

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?

With 4 params, one required, 0% schema coverage, an output schema present and read-only annotations, the description supplies everything an agent needs: metric scope, inclusion examples, value ranges, formats, and defaults.

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 carries the full burden and does so well: it enumerates fondo values (0–3), explains the two tipo semantics and why to pick each, gives plazo syntax ("1 año", "5 años") with its default, and gives periodo syntax ("AAAA-MM") with its default. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema types.

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 metric (nominal and real profitability in %), the entity (each AFP), the dimension (fund), and the horizons (1, 2, 3... years) per SBS. This clearly separates it from siblings such as afp_comisiones or afp_valor_cuota, which return different AFP metrics.

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?

Concrete example questions («¿qué AFP rindió más en el fondo 2?», «rentabilidad real a 10 años del fondo 3») make the intended use obvious. It never states when NOT to use it or points to an alternative sibling tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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