estado_conteo

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.