ratios_eficiencia

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe read-only behavior. The description adds context by specifying the output metrics (DIO, DSO, DPO, CCC), but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as assumptions about period length or data requirements. This is adequate but minimal beyond annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose (rotations and cash conversion cycle) and lists the key metrics. No wasted words, highly efficient.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description names the four specific ratios returned, which is helpful. It implicitly states outputs are in days. However, it lacks details on formulas, assumptions, or potential edge cases. For a calculation tool with clear inputs, this is nearly complete, but could include a formula hint.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a clear description. The tool description does not add new meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides; it only names the output ratios. While this complements the schema, it does not enhance parameter understanding. Baseline 3 is appropriate due to full schema coverage.

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 calculates rotations and cash conversion cycle metrics (DIO, DSO, DPO, CCC). It implies the verb 'calculates' and distinguishes from sibling tools like ratios_liquidez or ratios_rentabilidad, which focus on other financial aspects. However, it lacks an explicit action verb, which would make it a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context for applicability. For a financial ratios tool, it assumes the agent knows when to compute efficiency ratios, but explicit guidelines are absent.

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