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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only says the tool 'registers' an obligation and has no cost; it does not disclose persistence effects, reversibility, permissions, idempotency, or what the response will be. This is a notable gap for a mutation tool.

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 short, front-loaded, and every sentence adds information: what is registered, the conciliation purpose, and the cost implication. There is 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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description still lacks parameter-level guidance and expected result behavior. An agent might know the intent but not how to supply valid inputs or interpret success.

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%, and the description must compensate. It does not explain what 'monto' or 'referencia' mean, their formats, or their roles beyond the schema names. The conciliation context weakly implies their purpose, but no real parameter semantics are added.

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 verb 'Registra' plus the resource 'obligacion (cuenta por cobrar)' clearly states what the tool does, and the phrase 'para conciliarla despues contra un pago' adds a specific purpose. It is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like verificar_pago or validar_clabe, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 usage: it is for recording an account receivable that will later be reconciled against a payment. The 'No tiene costo' note adds practical context. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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