iniciar_solicitud_prestamo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool shows an interactive widget, that the user captures day, installment plan, PIN, and destination account step by step, and that only the suggested amount can be pre-filled from context. This is rich behavioral detail that goes beyond a simple 'starts a loan request'.

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 and front-loaded: it starts with the core action, then the widget behavior, followed by the critical rule and parameter guidance. Every sentence provides essential information, and the examples are brief and illustrative. No wasted words.

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 role as an entry point with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides complete context: when to call it, what it does, what the widget handles, and how to handle the optional parameter. It also implicitly guides the agent away from asking questions that the widget will handle, making it fully self-sufficient.

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?

Although the schema already covers the only parameter (monto_sugerido) at 100%, the description adds significant meaning by explaining how to infer it from conversational context, giving concrete examples ('una laptop de 3500'), and specifying when to omit it. This exceeds the baseline expected for high schema coverage.

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 tool's function: it starts a new loan request at Banco D by showing an interactive widget. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (capturar_monto_y_fecha, elegir_plan_pago, etc.) by being the entry point that triggers the whole flow, with the widget handling subsequent steps.

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 gives explicit, actionable instructions: call immediately when the user expresses interest, do NOT ask for any data beforehand, and only infer the monto_sugerido parameter when a clear amount is mentioned. This provides strong when-to-use guidance with clear exclusions, fulfilling the dimension fully.

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