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 the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the return content — products with precio, plan gratis, soporte, país de origen, and su ficha — which matters because there is no output schema. It omits auth/rate-limit or pagination behavior, but adds genuine value over the structured fields.

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, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then parameters, then return content. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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 eight parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, input mode, and return fields adequately for an agent to call it. It stops short of naming when to prefer sibling tools, which is the one remaining gap for a directory with seven related tools.

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%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters with enums and examples. The description only restates 'texto libre en español y filtros opcionales' and adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (busca) and resource (directorio de mexsaas / software) plus the target user (un negocio en México), so the agent can tell it is a search tool. It never names or contrasts with the many siblings (comparar_software_mx, ficha_software_mx, mejores_para_tarea_mx), so the differentiation is inferred 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?

Usage is only implied: 'Acepta texto libre en español y filtros opcionales' tells the agent this is a free-text/keyword search, which signals the search use case. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as mejores_para_tarea_mx or comparar_software_mx when the intent is ranking or comparison.

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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are Mexico-specific and grouped by need, which is genuine context beyond annotations, but it omits any note on how many results come back or how the grouping is structured.

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 resource and scope. It is efficient, though the ellipsis-style examples ('abogados, restaurantes, tienditas…') duplicate the enum already present in the schema rather than adding 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?

For a simple read tool with full annotation coverage, a complete schema and no output schema, the description is close to sufficient. Still, it never says what a 'kit' actually contains or how results are ordered, and it fails to distinguish itself from the nearly identical task-oriented 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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the 20-value enum and the 1-5 bound on por_tarea. The description restates business-type examples but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: it returns a software kit for a given business type in Mexico, grouped by need. A reader understands the output shape. However, it never differentiates itself from the sibling mejores_para_tarea_mx, which appears to flip the same two dimensions (task vs. business), leaving the boundary ambiguous.

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: pass a business type like 'restaurantes' and receive software suggestions. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative named (e.g., rankings via ranking_mx or task-first lookup via mejores_para_tarea_mx), so the agent must infer routing from context alone.

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 safety is covered without the description's help. The text adds only that results are a ranking and that business filtering is optional; it says nothing about ordering criteria, tie-breaking, or empty-result behavior. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 with the primary axis (tarea) front-loaded and the optional business filter trailing behind it. Zero filler; nothing can be cut without losing meaning.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description makes clear the return is a ranking and that it can be filtered, which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. Ordering and result-shape details are the only omissions, and the read-only annotations cover the rest.

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 all three parameters are documented there, including the enum values that the description merely echoes ('facturar', 'cobrar', 'nomina', 'agendar-citas'). No extra semantics are added for 'limite' or for how 'negocio' narrows the ranking, 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Ranking de software para una necesidad concreta (facturar, cobrar, nómina, punto de venta…)' with examples of the task axis. The clause about optionally narrowing to a business type implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling mejores_para_negocio_mx, though that sibling is never named.

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 implies the use case (rank tools for a given task, optionally filtered by business type), which is enough to pick it over a search or a single-ficha tool. However, it never states when NOT to use it or contrasts itself with ranking_mx, alternativas_mx, or buscar_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, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds the organic/unpaid nature of the ranking, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not describe rate limits, caching, or data freshness beyond what the periodo parameter already implies.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Ranking orgánico de mexsaas') and the key qualifier ('uso real; nadie paga por su lugar'), then enumerates the dimensions (general/category, month/year/historical). No wasted words.

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 ranking tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers what the tool returns conceptually (a ranking) and the available dimensions, but doesn't explain the relationship to sibling tools or what the ranking entries contain. With no output schema, the agent doesn't know the return structure beyond 'ranking'.

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%. The description mentions general or category rankings, and month/year/historical periods, which maps to the 'categoria' and 'periodo' parameters but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema. The 'limite' parameter and the slug nature of 'categoria' are only in the schema, not the description.

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: organic ranking of mexsaas based on real usage. Adds the key differentiator 'nadie paga por su lugar' (no paid placement), which is meaningfully distinct from siblings like comparar_software_mx or buscar_software_mx. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies it's for rankings but doesn't say when to prefer this over comparar_software_mx, mejores_para_negocio_mx, or mejores_para_tarea_mx. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and title alone.

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