salud_financiera

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes what the tool returns but does not explicitly state it is read-only or that it has no side effects. The nature of a summary tool suggests it is safe, but the lack of explicit transparency prevents a higher score.

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 two sentences, concise and directly to the point. It front-loads the purpose and gives a clear example of when to use it, with no redundant or extraneous information.

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 lists all key outputs the tool provides (averages, net margin, fixed cost coverage, payroll weight, months with loss, active payroll), making it clear what the agent can expect. Given it's a summary tool with no inputs, this is sufficient for an agent to decide to call it.

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, so the baseline of 4 applies. There's no additional parameter context needed, and the description doesn't confuse any parameter usage.

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 provides a general business summary, listing specific metrics (averages, net margin, fixed cost coverage, etc.), and distinguishes it from more detailed sibling tools like expense breakdown or revenue 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?

It explicitly mentions being useful as a first call when the user asks a broad question like 'how is my business going?', which gives clear guidance. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the context of sibling tools implies that for specific breakdowns other tools are appropriate.

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