Calculadora Normativa DGCP: Umbrales, Garantías y Alertas de Ilegalidad

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is low. The description adds genuine context: it is a deterministic legal computation producing illegality warnings ('detecta FRACCIONAMIENTO') and cent-precision figures grounded in Ley 340-06 and Decreto 416-23, which tells the agent what kind of result to expect.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause, then a numbered list maps cleanly onto distinct outputs with no filler. It is somewhat long, but each enumerated item (modality, illegality detection, the three guarantee types, deadlines) carries independent information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return content; it does so by enumerating the four result categories including specific percentages and the statutory basis. It stops short of describing the output structure or units (though DOP is implied by the schema), leaving a small gap for a computation tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by tying parameters to behavior: es_mipyme is linked to the 1% vs 4% Fiel Cumplimiento rate, monto_estimado frames the Ley 340-06 thresholds, and modalidad_planteada is explained as the input used to validate correctness or detect fraccionamiento.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('calcula las obligaciones legales exactas bajo la Ley 340-06') and enumerates the four concrete outputs (modalidad, fraccionamiento, garantías, plazos). This clearly distinguishes it from the buscar_*, generador_* and simulador_* siblings, which retrieve, generate, or score rather than compute obligations.

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 clear context for when the tool applies ('para cualquier presupuesto') and enumerates the situations it covers: validating modality, detecting fractionamiento as a causal de impugnación, and deriving guarantees/deadlines. It does not, however, name alternatives or exclusions relative to overlapping siblings such as dgcp_auditor_pliego_trampa or dgcp_generador_recurso_impugnacion, so routing still requires inference.

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