aging_cartera

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds context about the output structure (standard brackets and concentration), which is consistent and helpful.

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 informative sentence that front-loads the main purpose. It is concise and avoids unnecessary words, though could be slightly more structured.

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 the low complexity, no output schema, and complete parameter schema, the description adequately explains the tool's output concept (aging brackets and client concentration). However, it lacks explicit detail about the return format (e.g., table or aggregated values), which the description should compensate for.

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 covers the parameter 'documentos' with a detailed description including format and meaning of negative days (dias_vencido). The tool description adds no new parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 performs portfolio aging with standard brackets and client concentration. The verb 'aging' and resource 'cartera' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like ratio calculations.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The usage is implied by the tool's specificity, but alternatives are not mentioned among siblings.

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