ine_operacions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states a read operation and gives examples. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, requires no special permissions, or any potential side effects. More detail on safety and constraints would be beneficial.

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 description is very concise: two sentences. The first states the primary purpose, the second provides examples and workflow context. Every sentence is informative and necessary, with no redundancy or filler.

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 that an output schema exists (context signals show 'Has output schema: true'), the description does not need to explain return values. It sufficiently covers what the tool does, how to use it, and its relationship to sibling tools. The mention of 111 operations and common examples provides adequate context for agent understanding.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the single optional parameter with a clear description and examples (e.g., 'IPC', 'empleo'). The tool description adds a count of 111 operations but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 the tool lists all available INE statistical operations, with specific examples like IPC, EPA, PIB. It also explains the workflow: use this tool first to find the operation code, then use ine_taules for tables. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like ine_taules.

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?

The description explicitly instructs the agent to use this tool first to find the operation code, then proceed to ine_taules. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool and its role in the sequence of operations, differentiating it from other tools.

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