Compare Scenarios

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds useful context that calculations are identical and traceable across up to 10 scenarios, but it does not state whether the operation is purely read-only, whether it persists anything, or what auth/permission expectations exist.

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: the first front-loads purpose and limit, the second compactly enumerates the scenario fields. There is no wasted text.

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 output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed. However, because annotations are absent and the input schema is nearly empty, the definition should do more to explain computational assumptions, validation expectations, and whether the tool is read-only or side-effecting.

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% and the nested scenario item schema is effectively opaque (additionalProperties: true), so the description is the only source of field semantics. It compensates well by enumerating all supported scenario fields and clarifying that total_hours already includes buffers, though it omits types, requiredness, defaults, and valid ranges for those fields.

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 (compara) and resource (escenarios de precio y duración), plus the 10-scenario scope and traceable-calculation behavior. It is clear enough to distinguish from the sibling calculation and generation tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 “compara hasta 10 escenarios” and by the enumerated scenario fields, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as calculate_quotation, nor any when-not-to-use guidance.

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