Reclamos y devoluciones

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by describing the output contents: open claims, ongoing returns, reputation-affecting items, expired deadlines, and amount in play. This helps the agent set expectations for what the tool exposes.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler; the first front-loads the concrete data categories, and the second gives the use case. Every sentence earns its place and the description is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple two-parameter schema, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description provides enough context about what the tool returns and when to use it. It could be slightly stronger by clarifying how optional parameters like 'cuenta' behave when omitted, but that is a minor gap relative to the overall clarity.

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 only 50%, with 'cuenta' documented but 'limite' only given constraints (default 30, max 100, min 1) and no semantic explanation. The tool description does not compensate for this gap, as it does not mention either parameter or clarify how 'limite' affects results. The schema leaves the meaning of 'limite' mostly to inference.

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 identifies the resource ('reclamos abiertos, devoluciones en curso') and the specific information provided: reputation impact, expired action deadlines, and amounts at stake. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like ml_reputacion by framing it as the first stop when reputation drops.

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 an explicit trigger condition: 'Es lo primero a mirar cuando la reputación baja.' This tells an agent when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is clear enough for selection among the many sibling tools.

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