Comparar cadenas

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. It discloses that each chain resolves items independently, so cheapest may be different product/format; recommends using 'comparability' field and comparing by unit price. Also notes IP requirements and failure handling, revealing important behavioral traits.

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 paragraph of about 5 sentences, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, though slightly dense. Could be more structured but effectively concise.

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?

Covers complexity: returns per-chain best match and total, notes comparability, IP requirements, default stores, and failure handling. No output schema, but description explains return values sufficiently.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds minor context (example for items, default for stores, branchId purpose for Cencosud) but does not significantly expand beyond schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool estimates the total of a list across Chilean chains and identifies the cheapest among those with all products. It specifies the verb 'Estima' and resource 'cadenas chilenas', and distinguishes from siblings like 'build_list' by focusing on comparison.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'para el día a día conviene build_list con tu sesión' tells when to use an alternative. The 'IMPORTANTE' note advises on comparability and unit price. Mentions IP requirements for specific chains and that failures are reported, providing clear usage context.

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