Indicadores

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the default period ('por defecto el último publicado'), the discovery mode when no indicator is given, the unit convention ('valores en porcentaje salvo que el nombre diga otra cosa'), and the meaning of 'total'. These are exactly the behavioral details an agent needs before calling.

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 then parameters, with no filler sentences. The parenthetical explaining 'rendimiento' as the closest thing to an average rate is slightly verbose but genuinely disambiguating given SBS naming, so it earns most of its space.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't describe return shape, yet it still explains units and the 'total' row. All three parameters, their defaults, and the no-indicator behavior are covered, leaving nothing an agent needs missing.

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 carry the load, and it does: it enumerates all five tipo_entidad values (including the 'empresas de creditos' / edpymes rename), lists the seven named indicadores plus free-text name matching, and specifies the periodo format 'AAAA-MM' with its default.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Compara entidades financieras con los indicadores oficiales de la SBS') plus the sort order ('de mayor a menor'). The SBS financial-entity domain and the three example questions make it clearly distinguishable from generic siblings like ranking or reporte.

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?

Maps concrete user questions («¿qué banco tiene menor morosidad?», «ROE de las cajas municipales») directly to the tool, and explicitly states the fallback behavior when indicador is omitted ('sin indicador devuelve la lista de indicadores y entidades'). This is explicit when-to-use guidance rather than implied.

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