proyeccion_flujo_caja

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

No annotations are present, but the description carries the full burden by explaining the methodology: income trend with seasonality correction, fixed expenses category-by-category (including Bono 14 and aguinaldo), variable expenses as a proportion of income, and the fallback behavior for omitted saldo_inicial.

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 information-dense and well organized: it opens with the purpose, then explains methodology and output, and finishes with a compact parameter list. No redundant filler.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations are absent, the description covers the essential context: what the tool calculates, how it calculates it, what it returns, and the meaning and defaults of every parameter. Nothing critical is missing.

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 schema provides only names and defaults; the description adds meaningful detail for all three parameters, including units (quetzales), valid ranges (1-6 months for meses, 3-18 for ventana), and the exact fallback behavior when saldo_inicial is omitted.

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 action: projecting whether available cash will cover next month's expenses, and describes the output (net flow, projected balance, direct answer). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like expense breakdown or income trend.

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?

Provides clear context by framing the tool as answering 'will I have enough next month?', and describes the projection approach. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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