Scorecard de Salud Financiera y Riesgo de Pago Institucional

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a read-only analytical audit computing payment behavior, but discloses nothing about cost, latency, or data scope beyond what the schema's 'paginas' field states.

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 numbered list is well front-loaded with the action verb and each item earns its place by naming a distinct computed output. Minor marketing embellishment ('quirúrgicamente', 'asfixia financiera') adds flavor rather than information, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of conveying what comes back, and the four enumerated outputs (payment terms, disbursement methods, supplier concentration index, solvency rating) do that reasonably well. It is complete enough for a 2-parameter read-only analysis tool, though the exact return structure remains unspecified.

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 both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including the 'paginas' default of 20 and the 'institucion' examples. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb ('Audita') plus a precisely-scoped resource ('comportamiento comercial y de pago de cualquier institución del Estado') and enumerates four concrete outputs. This is clearly distinguishable from search-oriented siblings like dgcp_buscar_contratos, though it never explicitly names an alternative to differentiate itself.

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 enumeration of four outputs implies what the tool is for, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer it over closely related siblings such as dgcp_radiografia_proveedor or dgcp_inteligencia_proceso. The agent must infer the fit from the described outputs.

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