analizar_riesgo_costes

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains critical behaviors: it does not change AWS resources, does not grant consent or execute billable operations, uses free API for free tier, and merges activity through existing tools. This provides sufficient transparency.

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 concise at 5 sentences, with the purpose front-loaded. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, model used, activity merging, free tier and include_actual_cost clarification, and non-destructive nature. No unnecessary repetition.

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 8 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate by explaining key parameters and output. Only include_actual_cost is addressed. The output schema exists but is not described. The complexity is medium-high, but the description provides insufficient detail for effective tool use.

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 0%, yet the description only explains the include_actual_cost parameter. The other 7 parameters (regions, services, period_days, etc.) receive no explanation, leaving the agent to infer from names and types. This is insufficient given the low 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 first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Prioritize potential AWS cost risk without treating it as actual spend.' It uses a specific verb (prioritize) and resource (cost risk), and distinguishes from sibling tools like consultar_costes_aws which deal with actual spend.

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 implicitly differentiates from siblings by emphasizing risk assessment rather than actual spend. It mentions when include_actual_cost=True is appropriate, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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