enaho_perfil

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, which cover safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is intentionally compact, does not load microdata into context, and reports detected expansion factor and inferred analysis unit. This goes beyond the annotations and is consistent with them.

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 very concise: two sentences that front-load the core output and then add purpose and extra returned info. Every sentence earns its place with zero fluff.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers the key returned elements and the rationale for using the tool. It does not explain all edge cases, but it is sufficient for a read-only profiling tool with a simple input schema.

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 67%, with dataset and variables documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level semantics; max_variables lacks a schema description and the description does not compensate. This is a borderline case where the schema does most of the work.

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 clearly states the output: type, missing values, quartiles, and value labels for each variable. It also mentions reporting the expansion factor and analysis unit, giving a specific resource. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate from, though the purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: it exists to decide what to do without bringing microdata into the context, implying use for quick exploratory checks. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the use case is well implied.

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