Simulador Matemático de Adjudicación y Puntuación DGCP

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

Annotations already establish readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, consistent with a pure computation. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the exact formula, the five evaluated scenarios (90–98% of referential), and the output fields (gross margin in DOP, margin %, estimated total score, strategic recommendation). It stops short of describing assumptions/edge cases.

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?

Front-loads the core formula, then lists the generated sensitivity matrix — well ordered with no filler. The inline formula line is slightly redundant for selection but is arguably the tool's defining feature, so it largely earns its place.

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 read-only computation tool with no output schema, the description conveys what is produced (scenario matrix, margins, score, recommendation) and how it's derived. Only minor gaps remain, such as what happens when competitor prices are omitted or how ties/edge cases are handled.

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 the schema already defines all six parameters with defaults and bounds. The description references the formula variables (min valid price, offer price, economic weight) but adds no format, unit, or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 (calcula) and resource (precio óptimo / puntuación DGCP), and spells out the exact official formula used. An agent can distinguish it from search/list siblings and the generic calculadora_legal because it names the scoring/adjudication computation specifically.

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 usage (bidding strategy, price optimization) but never states when to choose this over siblings like dgcp_calculadora_legal or dgcp_inteligencia_proceso, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage must be inferred from the stated output rather than explicit guidance.

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