finanzas_comparar_cdt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what information will be shown ('tasas, rendimiento real y links al banco'). It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, data freshness, or what happens with invalid inputs. The description is functional but lacks operational context.

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 appropriately sized (one sentence) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It efficiently communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning all three parameters.

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 comparison tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose but lacks details about the return format, error handling, or data sources. With no annotations and no output schema, more context about what the comparison results look like would be helpful for the agent.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description mentions 'según monto y plazo' which aligns with the first two parameters but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The 'top' parameter isn't mentioned at all in the description.

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 specific action ('Compara' - compares), resource ('CDTs disponibles en Colombia'), and scope ('según monto y plazo'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing specifically on CDTs rather than accounts, loans, properties, products, or travel services.

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 context (when comparing CDTs by amount and term) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'finanzas_comparar_cuentas' or 'finanzas_simular_credito'. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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