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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden and does well: it discloses the return payload (adjusted amount, factor, percentage variation), a concrete cost of 2 credits, and the IPC compounding convention for months after the initial one. Remaining gaps are minor — it does not clarify that the operation only computes a result rather than persisting changes, and says nothing about error behavior for out-of-range dates.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and supported indices, followed by the return payload, the one non-obvious edge case, and the cost. Nothing is redundant and nothing important is buried.

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, so describing the returned amount, factor and variation is necessary and done. For a 4-parameter calculation tool with three required inputs, the definition covers the operation, result shape, methodology and cost; only rounding/precision and failure conditions are unaddressed.

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 75% and the one undocumented parameter, the 'indice' enum, is fully expanded in the description as UVA, CER, ICL or IPC, adding semantic meaning beyond the bare values. The IPC note also sharpens what 'desde'/'hasta' mean in practice by specifying month-inclusive boundaries.

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 and resource ('Actualiza un monto en pesos entre dos fechas') and enumerates the four supported indices, which makes the operation concrete. It does not, however, differentiate itself from plausible siblings such as convertir_uva or indice_valor, so the agent must infer which tool handles amount restatement versus index 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?

Usage is implied by the framing (restate an amount from one date to another), and the IPC sentence clarifies one edge case, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, nor any named alternative for conversion-style tasks. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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