Seguros Ranking

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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world safety, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context by stating units, that ramo defaults to the total, and that periodo defaults to the latest published month — defaults that the schema only shows as null. It says nothing about how many rows come back or what 'limite' does to the result set.

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 what is ranked and in what units, then usage, then parameter notes. Dense but every sentence contributes; the long ramo enumeration is long yet functional.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the metric/units/periodo semantics are covered. The unexplained 'limite' parameter (default 10) is a genuine gap for a ranking tool, since it determines whether the agent sees a top-N slice or the full market.

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 meaning. It does well for ramo (enumerates accepted values and the default) and periodo (AAAA-MM format, year-to-date accumulation, default), but omits 'limite' entirely, leaving one of three parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

Names a specific resource and metric: ranking of insurers by net premiums (thousands of soles) and market share (%). It implicitly separates itself from the generic sibling 'ranking' by stating the insurance domain, but never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives concrete triggering questions («¿cuál es la aseguradora más grande?», «¿quién vende más SOAT?»), which is strong positive guidance. It offers no when-not guidance and doesn't route to seguros_indicadores or ranking for adjacent questions.

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