Auditoría de tiers y promociones

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 states the action and source but does not explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or any side effects. The word 'audita' suggests inspection but does not guarantee safety.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Audita' and immediately specifying the target and source. It is concise with zero extraneous content, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description mentions what is audited (tiers, prices, plans) and the source (account/me), but it does not clarify the return format or any caveats. While adequate for a low-complexity tool, it falls short of fully describing the output.

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 has 0 parameters, and the input schema is an empty object. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description does not need to compensate. The baseline of 4 applies here, as the description adds no parameter-specific meaning but none is needed.

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 clearly states the specific action (audits) and resource (subscription tiers, prices, plans), and specifies the source (real profile via account/me). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like auditar_caja_fuerte, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 usage by mentioning the real profile (account/me), suggesting it is for the authenticated user's actual data. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or when not to use it.

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