open_business_overviewONE widget, two display modes: inline snapshot by default, fullscreen tabs (Cliente 360, Cerrar el día, Reposición de stock, Dashboard de ventas) on demand. Aggregates caja, payments, ventas, reportes, supplier, and customer reads.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| defaultTab | No | Optional fullscreen tab to open into. | |
| customerName | No | Optional customer name to pre-search on the Cliente 360 tab. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: it opens a widget with two display modes, the named tabs, and that it aggregates multiple read sources. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not detail return format or failure 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 sentences with no waste. Key facts are front-loaded: widget, two display modes, tab names, and data sources. Every word adds value.
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 tool with 2 optional params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, modes, tabs, and data sources. It could be more explicit about what the tool returns (e.g., whether it returns a snapshot or just opens a UI), but the read-only and UI-opening nature is inferable from annotations and tool name.
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 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema's enum for defaultTab and the description for customerName are sufficient. Baseline 3 applies for high schema 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?
Description uses specific language: 'ONE widget, two display modes' and lists the fullscreen tabs and aggregated data sources (caja, payments, ventas, reportes, supplier, customer reads). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling open_* tools like open_caja_status or open_catalog_selector, which focus on singular areas.
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 use for a broad business overview, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any exclusions. It mentions 'by default' and 'on demand' but lacks direct comparison to sibling tools such as query_sales or find_customer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools duplicate the same underlying data in different presentation modes (get_payment_intent_status vs open_cobro_status, query_catalog vs open_catalog_selector, connection_status vs open_onboarding), creating ambiguity. Descriptions mention 'widget' vs JSON but an agent could easily pick the wrong one for a given task.
Tool names mix Spanish and English (caja_consultar_saldo vs validate_cuit) and use varying verb prefixes (open_, query_, get_, list_, find_, track_, quote_, validate_); only the open_ prefix is consistent.
22 tools sits at the high end of the borderline range; the server covers multiple domains (catalog, shipping, payments, fiscal) which justifies many tools, but some widgets and query equivalents could be consolidated.
The surface is heavily read-only: there are no create/update/delete tools for customers, suppliers, or products, and the only way to register a sale is through a widget that fires an internal function. There are also no tools to actually create a payment link or charge, leaving transactional workflows incomplete.