Ranking

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 genuinely useful context beyond them: units of the returned figures (thousands of soles, percent), the default period being the last published one, and the restriction that credit subtypes apply only to banks.

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?

Purpose and returned metrics come first, then example queries, then parameter value guidance, then the default period — a clean front-loaded order with no filler sentences. Every clause either scopes the resource or specifies an argument domain.

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 values need no explanation, and the description covers the domain restrictions and defaults an agent needs. The only material omission is the semantics of 'limite', which matters for a ranked-list tool.

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 it does well for three of four parameters: tipo_entidad values, concepto values including bank-only credit subtypes, and periodo format 'AAAA-MM' with its default. The 'limite' parameter is never mentioned, leaving the agent to infer that it caps the number of ranked entities.

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 opens with a precise statement of the resource and output: an official ranking of entities by size, with amount in thousands of soles and market share in percent. That is enough to separate it from siblings such as indicadores, reporte, and seguros_ranking (insurance), but no sibling is named explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 three concrete example questions («cuál es el banco más grande», «participación de las cajas municipales en depósitos», «quién lidera los créditos a microempresas») that map directly onto invocation, plus the valid value sets for tipo_entidad and concepto. There are no explicit exclusions or pointers to alternative tools for related needs (e.g. when to prefer indicadores).

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