evaluar-encaje

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the comparison criteria and the three possible result labels, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires an existing master profile or login, or whether any state is modified.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the comparison basis and the possible outputs. It is dense but appropriate for the tool's scope, with 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?

For a one-parameter computation tool with no output schema, the description explains the outcome categories and the comparison criteria reasonably well. It still omits important context such as whether a master profile must already exist, whether authentication is required, and what the "motivos" structure contains.

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 input schema already documents the single parameter at 100% coverage, including valid forms such as id, slug, or URL and a concrete example. The description does not add further syntax or formatting details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 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 names a specific action ("Compara") and the resources involved: the offer versus the master profile and its preferences. It also states the returned outcome labels, so the agent can understand what the tool produces without opening a schema. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool "comparar-perfil", which is the main remaining ambiguity.

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 implies the tool is used to evaluate whether an offer fits the stored profile and preferences. However, it does not explicitly say when to use it instead of siblings such as "comparar-perfil" or "detalle-de-oferta", nor does it state prerequisites such as needing a saved master profile or an authenticated session.

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