KPIs del período

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

Annotations already declare safe read-only/idempotent behavior. The description adds value by specifying default period (current month) and output composition (breakdown + text explanation), which aren't in the 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main content and a necessary default-period caveat.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining returns. It mentions breakdown and explanation but doesn't specify the structure, units, or edge cases (e.g., empty months). It's adequate for a simple KPI tool but not fully comprehensive.

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 schema fully documents the 'periodo' parameter, but the description clarifies the default value ('mes en curso'), which the schema only vaguely references as 'su valor por defecto'. This adds meaningful context.

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 explicitly names the KPIs (ventas, gastos, impuestos F29, resultado) and states the output includes breakdown and text explanation. It distinguishes from siblings by being an aggregate indicator tool rather than a specific report, though it lacks an explicit verb.

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?

It implies the tool is for period KPIs, but does not name alternatives or state when to use it over sibling tools like ordis_get_f29 or ordis_get_f22. The default-period note is behavioral guidance, not usage comparison.

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