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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context by stating the result is grouped by service and detail and that the call is free ('No tiene costo'). It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or describe limitations like missing data handling, but for a simple consumption query the disclosure is adequate.

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 compact, front-loaded with the tool's core purpose, and adds only the essential parameter format and cost note. Every sentence contributes value with no unnecessary elaboration.

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 single-parameter query tool, the description covers purpose, result granularity, parameter format, and cost. It does not specify what happens when 'mes' is omitted, whether the month is required, or how current-period consumption is determined, leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing whether to supply the parameter.

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 provides only the parameter name 'mes' with a default and no description. The description adds meaningful semantic value by specifying the required format AAAA-MM, which is essential for correct invocation. This compensates for the 0% schema description 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 reports the user's consumption for the period, broken down by service and detail. This identifies the specific resource and query nature of the tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like consultar_saldo or consultar_precios.

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 context is implied: provide a month to see consumption for that period. The month format is given, and 'no tiene costo' indicates there is no cost barrier. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over related tools or any exclusions.

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