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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses the default date behavior and the 1-credit cost, which an agent could not infer elsewhere. It omits what happens on non-business days or invalid dates, and says nothing about the shape of the result or error modes.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by use cases and cost. No filler, though the use-case list is slightly tacked on rather than integrated.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is workable but thin: it does not state what the return value contains (converted amount, UVA index used) or edge-case behavior. An agent could call it correctly but cannot predict the response.

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 compensate; it partially does by explaining the fecha default and framing the conversion direction. The monto and direccion fields are only implicitly defined through the enum values, with no notes on rounding, positive-only constraint, or date format beyond the schema pattern.

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 (convierte) and resource (monto entre pesos y UVA) with both conversion directions made explicit via the enum and the phrase 'entre pesos y UVA'. It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like ajustar_monto or indice_valor, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives concrete usage contexts (créditos hipotecarios, plazos fijos UVA, contratos) and clarifies the default date is today, which implies when to reach for it. It never says when to use a neighboring tool instead, nor what the preconditions are (e.g., that UVA values only exist for business days).

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