Siguiente mejor acción

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the disclosure that recommendations are deterministic and explained, plus the scoring model (priority entity, unexecuted transforms, historical performance / learning from results). That tells the agent results are reproducible and justified, which annotations cannot convey. It does not say how suggestions are ordered or returned.

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 densely packed sentence with no filler, and the core recommendation logic is front-loaded. It is slightly jargon-heavy ('entidad prioritaria x transform aplicable'), which costs a little parsing effort but no wasted content.

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 no output schema, the description still conveys the shape of the answer (ranked, explained next actions) and the inputs to that ranking, which is the essential context for a read-only advisory tool. Missing details: whether an empty result means 'exploration exhausted' and the ordering/confidence of suggestions.

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 limit, case_id, include_stats and response_format are fully documented in the schema; the description only loosely ties to include_stats via the mention of 'rendimiento histórico del transform'. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Recomienda') and a well-defined output: prioritized pivots computed from entity priority x applicable-but-unrun transform x historical transform performance. That framing distinguishes it implicitly from the execution siblings like osint_run_transform or osint_expand_entity, though no sibling is named.

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: the agent can infer this is the 'what should I do next' tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g., a case with prior exploration), and no pointer to osint_run_transform as the follow-up action once a suggestion is chosen.

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