detectar_gastos_atipicos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of outlining side effects. It implies a read-only analysis (calculates z-scores, reports deviations) but never explicitly states that it does not modify data or access sensitive information. This lack of explicit safety disclosure leaves room for uncertainty.

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 concise and well-structured, with a brief narrative followed by an 'Args' section that clearly maps parameters to their meanings. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids extraneous details.

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 an analysis tool with two parameters and a clear methodology, the description provides sufficient context to use it correctly. It explains the input (months back, threshold) and the expected behavior (calculate z-scores, report deviations with explanations), even without detailing the output 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?

Both parameters are fully explained in the description: 'meses' is defined as how many months to look back (with a minimum of 3) and 'umbral_z' as the standard deviation threshold with practical guidance (2.0 strict, 1.5 more cases). This goes well beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's function: detecting unusual expenses by comparing each category against its own historical data. It explicitly mentions the z-score method and reporting deviations, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like simple breakdowns or income trends.

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 concrete use cases: answering 'hubo algún gasto raro?' and explaining why a month went badly. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so some inference is needed.

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