Sugerencia de precio PPV

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions analyzing SQLite data but does not state whether the tool performs read-only operations, what permissions are needed, whether it writes anything, or what the suggested price format looks like. This lack of detail limits transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that clearly conveys the tool's purpose without any redundancy or unnecessary details. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides a basic understanding of what it does but leaves gaps. It does not explain when to use the tool, what the output consists of beyond a 'price suggestion,' or any caveats about the analysis. More context would improve completeness.

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 zero parameters, so the input schema is empty. There are no parameter names, defaults, or formats to explain. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline score of 4 for no-parameter tools applies.

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 a specific action: 'Analiza patrones históricos de compra desde SQLite y sugiere un precio orientativo para PPV.' It names the resource (historical purchase patterns from SQLite) and the goal (suggest a PPV price), which distinguishes it from sibling analytics tools that focus on metrics, reports, or audits.

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 the tool should be used when a PPV price suggestion is needed based on purchase history, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. Context is clear but not elaborated.

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