Listar Reportes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context ('que conoce este servidor', i.e. a fixed server-side catalog rather than a live query). It does not mention whether the result can be empty or how it is ordered, but with an output schema present that gap is minor.

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 purpose in the first line, then usage, then per-parameter hints, with no wasted prose. The terse 'param: values' formatting is efficient though slightly telegraphic; the imperative 'Úsenla' is clear.

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, return-value explanation is not required, and both optional parameters are documented with their value space. What remains unstated is edge behavior (no matches, empty catalog) and filter combination semantics, which would fully close the loop.

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 burden and does so well: it enumerates all six allowed sector values and gives example words for 'texto' ('liquidez', 'morosidad', 'afiliados'). It stops short of stating matching behavior (substring vs exact, case sensitivity) or whether both filters combine with AND.

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 concrete verb and resource: lists the SBS bulletins known to this server, returning their code and official title. This is clearly distinct from siblings like 'reporte' (reads content) or 'ranking'/'indicadores' (fetch data), and an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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 says to use it when no other tool covers the question, and explains the downstream purpose: find the code that is then read with 'reporte'. This is a genuine routing rule plus a named follow-up tool, which is exactly what a discovery/list tool needs.

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