Tablero Despacho

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 by structured data. The description adds a mild behavioral hint that filtering is by keyword ('filtra por palabra'), but says nothing about return format, matching rules, or what an empty result 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?

Two short sentences with the topic scope front-loaded and the parameter note second; nothing is padded. The brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure economy, but no sentence is wasted.

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 one optional parameter, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the definition is close to sufficient, but it never states what the tool returns or how filtered results are shaped. For a knowledge-retrieval tool an agent would want at least a hint that it yields feature descriptions rather than a live configuration.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter, and it does: it marks 'tema' as optional and illustrates the intended vocabulary with five concrete example keywords («tiques», «horas», «impuestos», «ERP», «WhatsApp»). This meaningfully guides value selection. It still omits whether matching is substring or whole-word and whether an empty string means no filter.

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 core sentence, "Funciones de Tablero Despacho," largely restates the tool name and title without a verb indicating what is returned (a list of features, documentation text, or snippets). It scopes the topic to the product but gives no way to distinguish it in kind from siblings like 'que_es_tablero_despacho' or 'integraciones', which are evidently the same genre of topic lookup.

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 never says when to call this rather than the sibling topic tools, nor what happens when no topic matches. The only usage-flavored content is the note that 'tema' is optional, which comes from the schema anyway.

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?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and side effects are covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether it returns static documentation, a single article or a list, nor any limits or fallback behavior.

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 no filler, and the resource is front-loaded before the parenthetical category list. The only weakness is that the parenthetical enumeration takes up most of the space while the actual action remains unstated.

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 zero-parameter, read-only informational tool with no output schema, the description covers the topic scope but not the shape of what comes back (single text vs. list of integrations). That is a relevant gap because the agent cannot tell how to present or reuse the result.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. The enumerated categories do help an agent understand what content domain the parameterless call covers.

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 the resource (integraciones) and enumerates the covered categories (ERP, contabilidad, nóminas, tareas, correo, WhatsApp, centralita), which gives an agent a rough sense of the content. However, it phrases the purpose as a topic label rather than stating what the tool actually returns, and it never distinguishes itself from informational siblings such as funciones or seguridad_y_datos.

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 guidance on when to call this tool versus the other informational siblings (funciones, precio_y_demo, preguntas_frecuentes, seguridad_y_datos). An agent must infer from the topic alone that this is the right tool for integration-related questions and that other questions belong elsewhere.

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 openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioural fact beyond that: it collects no user data and the user must write to the contact directly, which prevents an agent from attempting a lead-capture flow. It does not explain what happens when the price is not published (empty field? alternative text?), which is the main behavioural unknown here.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the payload (model, price, contact) and followed by the one constraint that matters (no data collection). No filler, no repetition of the title, and the conditional 'si está publicado' is compactly handled.

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 zero-parameter, read-only informational tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and how the user should proceed. The only gap is that it does not say how to present the result when price is unpublished or contact data is missing, a minor omission for a tool this simple.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4 and the description correctly creates no false expectation of input. It even clarifies the interaction model (direct contact, no data collection), which is the only semantic an agent could get wrong.

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 three concrete things the tool returns: the contracting model, the price (with the caveat 'si está publicado'), and a direct contact for requesting a demo. That is a specific verb-plus-resource purpose an agent can match to a pricing/demo question. It stops short of naming any sibling tool, so differentiation from preguntas_frecuentes or seguridad_y_datos relies on the agent inferring from the topic.

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 rather than stated: an agent can infer it should call this when a user asks about price, contracting, or booking a demo. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no reference to the sibling tools (funciones, integraciones, preguntas_frecuentes) that also answer informational questions. The note that interested parties contact the sales channel directly does help route the post-call behaviour.

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, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that answers are 'official' and that search is word-based, but leaves the important behavior unstated: what happens when `consulta` is omitted or empty, and whether matching is substring, token, or accent-insensitive.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the parameter note second. Efficiency is good, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than true economy.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, so the bar is modest. Still, an agent cannot tell from the description whether the result is a single answer, a list of Q&A pairs, or a ranked search result, nor what an omitted `consulta` returns.

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 0% (the single property only declares type string, title and empty default), so the description carries the burden. It does add real meaning by saying `consulta` is optional and performs word-based search, but it omits matching semantics and the empty-string behavior that the default value hints at.

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 concrete resource and behavior: frequently asked questions with their official answer, plus an optional word-based search. It is clear enough to know what the tool returns, though it never distinguishes itself from the topical siblings (funciones, integraciones, precio_y_demo, seguridad_y_datos), which appear to be the same kind of content split by category.

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 only usage signal is that `consulta` is optional and searches by words, which implies a browse-all vs. search behavior. There is no statement of when to prefer this general FAQ tool over the topical sibling tools, and no indication of when it should not be used.

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, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description only adds what topics the returned content covers, with no note on output format, length, or whether the content is static — real but modest added value against an already-complete annotation set.

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 with a colon-separated content list — efficient and easy to scan. The opening 'Resumen de Tablero Despacho' mildly duplicates the title, which keeps it from a 5.

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 zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent broadly what content comes back. However, with no output schema the agent has no idea of the response shape or how this overview relates to the sibling topical tools, which leaves a genuine gap.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; no parameter semantics are needed or missing. Baseline for a parameterless tool, with nothing extra to earn a higher mark.

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 uses a clear framing ('Resumen de Tablero Despacho') and enumerates the exact content the tool returns: what it is, who it's for, which problems it solves, and who builds it. That is enough to distinguish it from siblings like 'funciones' or 'precio_y_demo', though it never explicitly contrasts itself 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the introductory/overview tool to call before the more specific siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. versus 'preguntas_frecuentes').

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 establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation with no destruction. The description adds only a content topic and does not disclose what kind of information is returned, whether it is static documentation, or how comprehensive the answer is.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted wording. However, its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficient front-loading of actionable details.

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 zero-parameter informational tool, the description is still too vague to tell an agent what content to expect or when this tool is preferable to preguntas_frecuentes. The annotations cover safety, but the description does not complete the selection picture.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the empty schema is consistent with a no-input informational tool.

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 identifies a topic—how the firm’s and clients’ data are protected—but does not state what the tool actually does, such as returning information or answering security questions. It is distinguishable by topic from siblings like precio_y_demo or integraciones, but only weakly, and offers no verb or explicit resource action.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as preguntas_frecuentes or integraciones. The topic implies it may answer security/data-protection questions, but no conditions, exclusions, or sibling routing are provided.

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