mexsaas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so safety and repeat-call behavior are covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral rule — that results are restricted to the same category or tasks and exclude software for other industries. It says nothing about ordering, result count behavior beyond the schema default, or what a 'no match' looks like.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core definition and then the exclusion rule. No filler, though the parenthetical is doing a lot of work in one clause and the phrasing is slightly dense.

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 no output schema, the description does tell the agent what kind of objects come back (products solving the same problem), which is the main missing piece. It still omits ordering, relevance criteria, and behavior when the input product is unrecognized — acceptable for a low-complexity, 2-parameter read tool, but not complete.

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 100%: both 'producto' (slug or name, with examples) and 'limite' (max 15, default 8) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific outcome: products that solve the same problem as a given product, scoped to 'misma categoría o mismas tareas'. That scoping criterion makes the purpose concrete and distinguishable in spirit from a generic search. It stops short of naming a sibling (e.g. comparar_software_mx), so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the closest alternatives such as comparar_software_mx or buscar_software_mx. The only implied usage comes from the description's own semantics ('resuelven lo mismo que otro'), which the agent has to translate into a decision.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include price, free plan, support, country of origin, and a profile link, which is useful. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior beyond the 'limite' parameter, sorting or ranking logic, or what happens when consulta is empty alongside filters.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler: purpose, input modes, return shape. Front-loaded with the core action and directory name.

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?

For a read-only search over 8 parameters with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, accepted inputs, and returned fields. Missing only edge-case behavior (empty results, filter combination rules, sorting) and explicit routing to sibling tools, so not quite complete.

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 coverage is 100% with rich field descriptions, so the schema carries parameter semantics. The description mentions 'texto libre en español y filtros opcionales' generally but adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb+resource+scope: 'Busca en el directorio de mexsaas el software que resuelve lo que necesita un negocio en México.' Clear that it searches an MX SaaS directory by business need, distinguishing from siblings like ficha_software_mx (detail) or categorias_mx (browse).

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?

Implies usage by mentioning 'Acepta texto libre en español y filtros opcionales', which helps the agent understand supported input modes, but doesn't say when to use it versus alternativas_mx, ranking_mx, or mejores_para_tarea_mx. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that each category is returned with its product count, which is modest but genuine output context beyond the annotations; no auth, rate-limit, or staleness details are given.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the purpose and enumerates the payload without padding. Every clause carries information.

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 no input parameters and no output schema, the description is responsible for signalling the shape of the response, and it does name the three result groups plus per-category counts. It stops short of describing ordering or whether values are stable identifiers, but it is adequate for a zero-argument reference lookup.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description contradicts or adds schema-relevant parameter information because none exists.

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 ('Lista') and enumerates the three resource types returned: categories, business types, and accepted needs. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like buscar_software_mx or ranking_mx, which perform searches/rankings rather than emitting reference values.

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 clause 'las necesidades que aceptan los filtros de las demás herramientas' implies this is a lookup-to-populate-filters tool, which is useful implied guidance. However, it never states explicitly when to call it (e.g. before filtering) or when it is unnecessary.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — the comparison is "calculado solo con datos publicados" (derived from published data, not extrapolation) — but says nothing about what happens with an unknown/ambiguous product name.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the action, then lists output facets in the order an agent would care about them. No filler phrases or restated title boilerplate.

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 no output schema, the description usefully previews the return shape (per-product data, similarities, recommendation) and annotations carry the safety profile. The only gap is edge-case behavior for missing or ambiguous product names, which is minor for a read-only idempotent 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 100%: both parameters are documented as slug or name with examples. The description only refers to them numerically ("dos productos") and adds no format, disambiguation, or ordering semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Compara dos productos lado a lado") and enumerates the delivered content: each product's data, their similarities, and when to pick each one. It is easily separable from single-product siblings like ficha_software_mx, but it never names or contrasts those siblings 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the tool to call when two products must be weighed against each other, and that ficha_software_mx is the alternative for a single product. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or named alternative.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the list of returned sections, which is useful, but does not disclose error behavior, permissions, rate limits, or what happens when the product is not found.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with a colon-separated list of return contents. It is efficient and free of filler, though the list is long and could be slightly tightened.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the profile contents. It is nearly complete, missing only edge-case behavior such as not-found handling.

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 100%, and the single parameter already documents that it accepts a slug or name with examples. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific resource and scope: 'Ficha completa de un producto del directorio' and enumerates the profile contents (what it does, functions, integrations, price, etc.). An agent can tell this is the single-product detail view, distinct from sibling list/search/compare tools, though no sibling is named 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?

Usage is implied: the 'ficha completa de un producto' framing suggests it is for retrieving the full profile of a known product. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives like buscar_software_mx or comparar_software_mx.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that results are grouped by need and scoped to Mexico; it says nothing about result volume, ranking logic, or how the kit is assembled, so it adds modest value on top of the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the resource, the market, example inputs, and the output organization. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

For a two-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description conveys enough to call it correctly and even hints at the shape of the return ('agrupado por necesidad'). The one real gap is the absence of any routing cue against the task-based sibling.

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 100% — the enum values and the por_tarea bounds (1–5, default 3) are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the domain with examples ('abogados, restaurantes, tienditas') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema supplies, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource — a software kit for a given business type in Mexico — and gives concrete examples of the 'negocio' values plus the grouping dimension ('por necesidad'). It is distinguishable from most siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closely related mejores_para_tarea_mx, whose task-based framing overlaps with the 'facturar, cobrar, nómina' examples given here.

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?

Usage is only implied: the required 'negocio' input signals 'call this when you know the business type.' There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives such as mejores_para_tarea_mx or buscar_software_mx, which an agent would need to route correctly between near-identical siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's only behavioral contribution is that the business-type filter is optional, which is useful but thin; it says nothing about ordering criteria or result format.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and the optional filter trailing it. Efficient, though the parenthetical task examples partly duplicate the enum values and could be trimmed.

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?

For a three-parameter, read-only query tool with no output schema, the description conveys that the return is a ranking (implying an ordered list) and that one filter is optional. Nothing critical is missing, though ranking criteria and tie-breaking remain unstated.

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 100% and both enums are fully enumerated in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description restates example values ('facturar', 'cobrar', 'nomina') that already appear in the enum, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema.

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 specific verb+resource ('Ranking de software') and the scope ('para una necesidad concreta'), with examples of the task dimension. It is clearly distinguishable in concept from a pure task lookup, but it never names or contrasts with the obvious sibling mejores_para_negocio_mx, which handles the complementary business-type-first use case.

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?

'opcionalmente solo lo que le sirve a un tipo de negocio' implies that filtering by business type is optional, which is genuine usage information. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, and no pointer to buscar_software_mx or mejores_para_negocio_mx for the adjacent intents, leaving routing to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description does add useful provenance context ('uso real y verificación; nadie paga por su lugar'), clarifying the ranking is organic and unsponsored, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result shape.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and the key trust differentiator. The parenthetical is the only interruptive element and it carries real information; nothing is redundant, though it packs several concepts into one clause.

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?

For a 3-parameter, output-schema-less tool with solid annotations, the description covers scope and periods but omits the return shape (what a ranking entry contains) and what 'mexsaas' concretely refers to. Adequate but with identifiable gaps.

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 coverage is 67%: limite and categoria have descriptions, and periodo's enum values are self-explanatory. The description's 'del mes, del año o histórico' and 'general o de una categoría' merely echo the schema's periodo options and the optional categoria, adding little beyond it, so the baseline of 3 fits.

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 names a specific resource (an organic ranking of mexsaas) plus its scope (general or by category) and period options (month/year/historical). It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like mejores_para_negocio_mx or mejores_para_tarea_mx, which could also produce ranked lists.

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 scope phrases ('general o de una categoría', 'del mes, del año o histórico') describe what can be requested but give no when-to-use guidance. There is no mention of when to prefer this over the 'mejores_para_*' or 'alternativas_mx' siblings, leaving the agent to infer selection.

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