completar_conexion

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it is a blocking wait with an approximate 1-minute timeout and depends on user action in an external browser. The annotations already signal non-read-only/external-world behavior, and the description enriches that without contradicting it.

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, front-loaded sentence communicates the core behavior, the duration, and the dependency on user approval. Every word earns its place and there is no redundancy.

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 zero-argument tool with simple behavior, the description is largely complete: it says what happens, in what environment, and for how long. It does not state what occurs on timeout/failure or explicitly link to the prerequisite conectar_cuenta step, but sibling context and the simple shape make this a minor gap.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add. Per the rubric baseline, a 4 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Espera') and a concrete resource/outcome ('que el usuario apruebe la conexión en el navegador'), with a time bound. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like conectar_cuenta (likely initiates) and estado_conexion (likely checks status).

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 intended context is implied: it waits after a connection has been initiated and requires user action in the browser. However, it never explicitly says 'call after conectar_cuenta' or mentions when not to use it, leaving the usage guidance mostly inferential.

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