Cotizar relleno de lista

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and 'NO cobra' is consistent with the read-only profile. The description adds useful context about preserving the user's columns and returning detected columns, gaps, cost and tope_sugerido, but adds nothing beyond annotations about external calls, limits or auth.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and the no-charge guarantee, then adds distinguishing behavior and a parameter edge case. Trimmed but each sentence carries meaningful information; only the line break/casing is slightly awkward.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need minimal explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. Description still communicates the preview semantics, column preservation, and one non-obvious parameter, making it largely complete—only the leads/file_path selection and wants_phone are unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains phone_for_all ('buscar teléfono también en filas que ya traen uno... centralitas'), which is genuinely valuable, and implies leads/file_path via 'lista propia (CRM, Excel)'. However, wants_phone and the relationship/choice between leads and file_path remain undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: analyzes a user's own list (CRM/Excel) and quotes the cost of filling gaps, explicitly noting it does not charge. It distinguishes itself from bulk enrichment ('A diferencia del enriquecimiento masivo'), though it does not name the sibling tools it complements (preview_bulk_enrichment / start_list_enrichment).

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?

Makes clear this is a preview/quote step and that no charge occurs, which implies it should precede an actual enrichment run. However, it never names the tool to call to execute (start_list_enrichment) nor clarifies when to use leads vs file_path, leaving selection to inference.

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