estado_resultados

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

Despite no annotations, the description explains the tool computes and displays various financial metrics, compares with previous month, and suggests it is a read-only reporting tool. No side effects or contradictions are mentioned.

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 repeats information about ingresos, gastos, utilidad, and margen across sentences, making it slightly redundant, though it remains understandable.

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?

The description provides a complete picture of what the tool does, including the input parameter and expected output contents. It lacks explicit output structure, but that is likely defined elsewhere, so it is sufficiently complete.

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 description fully explains the 'mes' parameter, including its format ('YYYY-MM') and the behavior when omitted (uses last month with data), adding meaning 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 generates a monthly income statement including revenues, expenses, net profit, and margin, and shows a breakdown by category and fixed vs variable expenses. It also provides an example query, distinguishing it from sibling tools like desglose_gastos or tendencia_ingresos.

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 an example question ('gane o perdi dinero en mayo?') and explains the tool's functionality, giving an agent a clear scenario for when to use it. It lacks explicit alternative comparisons, but the example and details are sufficient guidance.

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