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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does add some return context: price and stock by warehouse. However, it does not describe search semantics (partial vs exact matching, ordering), error behavior, or pagination beyond what the schema already states. 'En voseo' is an unusual note that is not clearly explained.

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 only two short sentences and is front-loaded with the core action. The trailing 'en voseo' is odd and slightly confusing, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

The tool is simple with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, so the description's note about returning price and stock by warehouse is useful. Still, it omits the critical sibling differentiation and search behavior details that an agent would need to choose it over precio_producto or stock_producto.

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 100%, so both q and limit are already documented. The description's 'por nombre' aligns with q but adds no syntax, matching rules, or defaults beyond the 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Busca productos por nombre' (search products by name). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like precio_producto or stock_producto, which also relate to prices and stock per warehouse.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this search tool versus precio_producto or stock_producto. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or the fact that it is a name-based search returning multi-warehouse data.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two valuable traits beyond the schema: the returned payload composition and a 31-day lookback window that limits results. It does not say what happens when the reference is outside that window, does not exist, or whether the call is read-only.

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 tight sentences with the return contents front-loaded and the 31-day constraint placed last as a caveat. The only waste is repeating the 'A-15' example already present in the schema.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description appropriately enumerates the return shape and flags the 31-day data window. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior (invoice not found or older than 31 days), which an agent would need to know before calling.

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 100% and the single parameter is already documented with an example ('Referencia de la factura, ej. A-15'). The description restates the same example without adding format constraints, case sensitivity, or accepted reference patterns, so it adds essentially nothing beyond the schema.

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 resource (una factura) and lookup key (su referencia), and enumerates what is returned: total, líneas con cantidades y precios, cliente y cómo pagó. This clearly separates it from aggregate siblings like ventas_periodo or informe_ventas, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is for looking up one known invoice by reference, and the 'últimos 31 días' note implicitly bounds when it applies. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. sibling guidance (e.g. use ventas_periodo for ranges) and no statement of prerequisites.

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

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

With no annotations at all, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits beyond the schema: results are filtered to open counts and each row carries warehouse plus counted-progress, and 'en voseo' signals an output-language/register quirk. It says nothing about read-only safety (only implied), volume, pagination, or permissions.

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?

One short sentence plus a parenthetical, front-loaded with the resource and then the return shape. Nothing is padded, though the trailing 'en voseo' is cryptic and could be folded more cleanly into the sentence.

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?

For a one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the essentials are covered: what entity, what filter state, and roughly what comes back. It stops short of saying whether items/lines are included or how many counts typically return, which an agent would want before calling.

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% and the single 'bodega' parameter is already documented with its default ('todas'). The description's 'qué bodega' merely echoes that the parameter narrows results, adding no format, casing, or partial-match detail beyond the schema.

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 names the resource precisely: open inventory counts ('Conteos de inventario abiertos') and even previews the returned fields (which warehouse, how far the count has progressed). That is enough to distinguish it from siblings like stock_producto or inventario_bajo, though the verb is nominal rather than an explicit 'list/consult'.

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 word 'abiertos' implicitly scopes results to non-closed counts, which is a small usage signal. But there is no statement of when to prefer this over stock_producto or inventario_bajo, no prerequisites, and no exclusions, so the agent must infer routing from the name alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the report's composition plus the output shape: a voseo summary suitable for voice plus a text detail section. It does not state that the operation is strictly read-only or describe any cost/latency or data-freshness behavior, which is the remaining gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the report contains and ending with the output format, with no filler. The long parenthetical enumeration is dense but every item is a distinct output field, so it earns its space.

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?

For a 4-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys both the scope and the return content, including the dual voice/text presentation. It falls short only on explicit routing versus the sibling sales tools.

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 the parameters (top, desde, hasta, periodo) are already fully documented in the schema, including the 31-day range limit and the 3/5 default-max for top. The description adds no extra syntax or interaction rules beyond implying ranking via 'los productos que más se venden', so the baseline 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 names a specific resource (an integral sales report) and enumerates its contents — gross/net sales, IVA, gross profit, average ticket, payment breakdown, top-selling and most-profitable products — so an agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not, however, name the siblings ventas_hoy or ventas_periodo to explain how it differs from them, which keeps it below 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 phrase 'a pedido' implies this tool is for ad-hoc/custom-range requests, which loosely distinguishes it from the fixed-period siblings, and the mention of a voice-ready summary hints at its intended channel. But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as the alternative for today's or a standard period's sales.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly doesn't. It does not state that this is a read-only query, how results are ordered or truncated when more than the limit qualify, or what each returned product includes. The trailing 'en voseo' is a cryptic response-format note that adds no actionable behavior.

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?

A single short sentence with the key qualifier front-loaded. The trailing phrase 'en voseo' is unexplained noise in an otherwise tight definition.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers the core filter adequately. It stops short of describing return contents or ordering, which an agent would need to interpret results without annotations.

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 100%, so both limit and umbral are already documented, including the reorder-point default. The description restates that same threshold/reorder-point semantics without adding formatting, interaction between limit and umbral, or defaults beyond the schema.

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?

Names a specific resource and filter: products whose stock is at or below a reorder point or a supplied threshold. An agent can distinguish it from stock_producto (single-product lookup) or buscar_producto, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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 condition for use is implied by 'stock bajo', but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of how it relates to stock_producto or buscar_producto, and no stated prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does very little with it. It does not say whether the lookup is read-only, what happens when the product is not found, whether multiple matches return multiple prices, or what the response shape looks like.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the currency-bearing fact that matters most. The aside about voseo is a register note of marginal relevance to invocation, but it costs little.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the essentials of what is returned and in which currency. It stops short of describing the return format or failure behavior, which an agent would still need to guess.

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?

There is a single required parameter and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage (product name, minimum 2 letters). The description adds no matching rules, case sensitivity, or ambiguity handling beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 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 states a concrete resource and unit: the base price in NIO of a product, which is clearly distinguishable from a USD price lookup. It does not name any sibling tool, so the agent must still infer whether buscar_producto or precio_producto is the right call.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs a base price in córdobas. The note that the USD price lives in T6 (precio_dolares) hints at where the alternative lives, but it points at a table rather than at a sibling tool, leaving the routing decision partially unresolved.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses the response shape (brief answer in voseo + source + confidence) and, importantly, the failure mode — it explicitly returns 'Sin fundamento en el manual' when nothing backs the answer. It also declares it does not read or touch business data. Not covered: latency, and what 'confianza' looks like in practice.

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-loaded with purpose, then output contract, then the negative boundary — a sensible ordering. The text is dense and slightly run-on (long parenthetical plus two clauses joined by semicolons), but no sentence is filler.

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?

For a single-parameter, no-annotations, no-output-schema knowledge tool, the definition covers what it does, what it returns, its sourcing, and its out-of-scope boundary. Minor gaps remain around confidence semantics and how off-topic questions are handled beyond the 'sin fundamento' fallback.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by scoping what counts as a valid question ('cómo se hace algo en la app', with the enumerated topics), which tells the agent how to phrase and constrain the free-text input rather than just passing raw chat text.

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 and resource: it answers USAGE questions about the Nortex app, and it enumerates concrete topic examples (vender por caja, códigos de barras, regalías, lotes, anulaciones). The closing line 'Solo conocimiento: no lee ni toca datos del negocio' cleanly separates it from every sibling tool, which are all business-data readers.

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?

Usage context is explicit: it is for 'cómo se hace algo en la app' questions, and the no-data-access clause functions as a clear when-not for anything involving live business records. It stops short of naming the alternative siblings (ventas_hoy, stock_producto, etc.), so the agent must infer the routing itself.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the shape of the result (total plus a per-warehouse breakdown), which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about how the product name is matched (the schema's 'mínimo 2 letras' hints at substring search), what happens if several products match, or what is returned when nothing is found. The trailing 'en voseo' is a response-style note rather than tool behavior.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the core question the tool answers. The only questionable element is the 'en voseo' clause, which is stylistic guidance rather than selection-relevant information.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential question and the result granularity. A little more on match behavior and the empty-result case would make it fully self-sufficient.

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% and there is a single parameter already documented as 'Nombre del producto (mínimo 2 letras)'. The description only restates 'de un producto' and adds no detail about partial matching vs exact name, so the baseline 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 names a concrete resource (stock of a product) and states the granularity of the answer (total and per warehouse), which lets an agent tell it apart from siblings like inventario_bajo (low-stock alerts) or precio_producto (pricing). It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it replaces, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for 'how much stock do I have of X'. There is no statement of when to prefer it over inventario_bajo or buscar_producto, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral detail: 'today' is defined as the America/Managua business day, which removes the main ambiguity for an agent. It also signals that the output is phrased in voseo and ready for voice. It stops short of describing what the response contains, such as a single total versus a breakdown, or how an empty day is handled.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the core question and then adds the two qualifying details. No filler, no restatement of the tool name beyond what is needed.

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?

For a parameterless, likely read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what is returned conceptually and the time boundary that defines it. The only remaining gap is the exact shape of the result, which is a minor omission at this complexity.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The timezone note actually adds context that a parameterless tool might otherwise leave unclear.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'cuánto vendió el negocio hoy', which tells an agent this returns today's sales total. The time scope is made explicit, which implicitly distinguishes it from ventas_periodo, but that sibling is never named.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'hoy'. The description never states when to prefer this over the sibling ventas_periodo, nor does it set exclusions, such as other ranges or per-user filtering.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only sales query but does not explicitly state safety, permissions, rate limits, or what exactly is returned beyond 'el mejor día'; the phrase 'en voseo' is ambiguous.

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 front-loaded sentence with little wasted wording. The only clarity issue is the unexplained phrase 'en voseo', which may confuse readers despite the overall brevity.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with a fully documented schema, so it does not need extensive parameter explanation. Still, with no output schema, the description could better specify the return shape, such as what 'mejor día' means and how sales values are presented.

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?

There is one optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines the range and default. The description repeats that information but adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific resource and scope: sales for the last N days plus the best day. It is distinguishable from ventas_hoy by its multi-day window, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as informe_ventas.

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?

Usage is implied by the period scope: it is for sales over a 1-30 day range rather than just today. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or named alternatives such as ventas_hoy or informe_ventas.

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