Seguros Indicadores

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, open-world operation. The description adds useful behavior: the default period is the latest published one, and leaving indicador empty returns the available list. It does not add much beyond that, such as data freshness or matching behavior beyond the examples.

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 purpose is front-loaded, followed by practical examples and parameter guidance. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool, though the parameter notes are slightly dense and could be more consistently formatted.

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?

Given the low parameter count, the presence of an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essentials needed to invoke the tool correctly. The main remaining gap is explicit differentiation from similarly named ranking siblings.

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 parameter semantics. It documents both parameters well: indicador accepts values such as "roe", "roa", "siniestralidad", "liquidez", sections like "solvencia", or words from the official name, while periodo uses "AAAA-MM" and defaults to the latest published. Exact enum-like values and matching rules are still somewhat informal.

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 clearly states that the tool returns official indicators per insurer, naming the dimensions: solvencia, siniestralidad, rentabilidad, liquidez and gestión. It is more specific than a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from ranking-oriented siblings such as seguros_ranking or ranking, even though one example asks which insurer has the highest ROE.

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 usage examples such as asking which insurer has the highest ROE or the claims ratio of Rímac, and explains that omitting the indicator returns the available list. It does not state when to prefer this over sibling ranking or report tools, so it falls short of explicit alternative routing.

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