Atribución de ingresos por publicación

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that data comes from persisted SQLite data (post_metrics), suggesting a read-only analysis, but it does not state whether the tool mutates data, what side effects might occur, or the format of the results. For a no-parameter tool this is a notable 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core function and data source without extra words. Every part adds value, and it is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it states the analysis target (post tip income) and the data source. It could mention the output form or clarify that it only covers tipped posts, but given the low complexity, it provides sufficient context for invocation.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the tool analyzes post-level tip income from a specific data source, which helps the agent understand the tool's domain even though no parameters need explanation.

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 ('Analiza') and resource ('publicaciones') while adding the revenue dimension ('ingresos por propinas') and data source ('SQLite (post_metrics)'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tool analizar_rendimiento_posts by focusing on tip income attribution rather than general post performance.

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 description implies when to use the tool (when you need to know which posts generate most tip income), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like analizar_rendimiento_posts. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided, but the intended use case is inferable.

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