Analyze Scope Gaps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful context by enumerating the eight confirmable categories it checks against, but it never states that the operation is read-only/non-destructive or otherwise describes its side-effect profile, leaving a gap for a no-annotation tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the category list is compact and necessary for parameter semantics. The only friction is the language mismatch between the Spanish body and the English name/title, plus a slightly terse second 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description adequately covers purpose and category values, but with 3 params, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, it leaves 'provided_details' semantics and any usage-vs-siblings routing 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 coverage is 0% and no parameter descriptions exist, so the description must compensate. It does add value by enumerating the allowed 'confirmed_categories' values, but 'provided_details' is left completely unexplained and 'requirement_description' is only inferable from its name.

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 gives a specific verb (detect) and resource (missing discovery questions) with a clear timing qualifier (before committing deadline/price). It is understandable and distinct in spirit from the estimation/generation siblings, but it never explicitly names or contrasts with any sibling tool.

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?

'antes de comprometer plazo/precio' implies the moment to use it (pre-commitment discovery), which is useful context. However, there are no explicit when-not conditions and no reference to alternative siblings, so the guidance remains inferred rather than stated.

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