confirmar_prestamo

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that after calling this tool, the widget shows a keypad for PIN entry, and it clearly states that the PIN will not appear in chat or any response received by the agent. This provides useful behavioral context beyond a simple 'records acceptance', though it does not detail the tool's return value or error handling.

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 well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, then explains typical invocation and agent-initiated invocation, and finally clarifies the PIN flow. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simple nature.

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 simple tool with one boolean parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main context: what the tool does, when to call it, and what happens after. It does not mention return values, but given the tool's simplicity and the fact that the widget proceeds to PIN entry, this is a minor gap. Overall, the description is fairly complete.

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 only one boolean parameter 'acepta_terminos' with 0% description coverage. The description implies the parameter should be true when the user accepts, but it never explicitly states what true/false means or how to set it. Since schema coverage is zero, the description should compensate, but it does not add direct parameter-level meaning.

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 opens with 'Registra la aceptación de términos y condiciones del préstamo', which clearly states the action (records acceptance) and the resource (loan terms and conditions). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by explicitly noting that PIN authorization is handled internally by the widget, not by this 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?

The description explains when to use the tool: normally invoked by the widget when the user accepts terms via the interface button, and also when the user explicitly accepts in chat (with an example phrase). It also provides a clear when-not by stating that PIN authorization is done by an internal widget tool and that the PIN never appears. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling tool as an alternative, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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