Resumen consolidado del dia

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context: it sums data from all connected stores, includes a comparison against yesterday, and adjusts scope based on the 'cuenta' parameter. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 for the information it conveys: a first sentence summarizes the output, a second provides usage guidance, and a third clarifies parameter behavior. The key purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence is purposeful. It is slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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 simplicity (1 optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what data is returned, how scope is controlled, and when to use it. It does not specify details like pagination or data freshness, but these are not critical for a summary dashboard tool. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% since the single parameter 'cuenta' has a clear description ('ID de una tienda puntual. Omitir para el consolidado de todas.'). The description's note 'Si le pasas una cuenta, muestra solo esa' essentially restates the schema, adding minimal extra value. This matches the baseline of 3 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 purpose: a consolidated daily summary across all connected stores, including sales, billing, units, comparison vs. yesterday, per-store breakdown, and recent sales. It uses specific verbs and a clear resource, and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools like ml_metricas or ml_ventas_geo by its aggregate 'photo of the day' scope.

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 explicitly identifies this as the starting tool for queries like 'how is the day going' or 'how are the stores', providing strong usage context. It also clarifies the effect of the 'cuenta' parameter (filtering to a single store). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when *not* to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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