Pesos constantes con la Unidad Indexada

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open world). The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing the computation method—deflation via the BCU average Unidad Indexada—which an agent needs to trust the result. It does not discuss failure modes such as missing UI data for a month, so not a 5.

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?

Three compact sentences with the core operation front-loaded, followed by parameter formats and the use case. No filler or 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and both parameters plus the nested map shape are covered. The only gap is handling of months lacking UI data or invalid date keys, which would matter for correct invocation.

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 fully compensates: it documents that `montos` is a map of {"AAAA-MM": monto} and `base` is a "AAAA-MM" string, including the exact date format. Both parameters are unambiguous without opening the schema.

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 transformation: converting amounts in current pesos from different months to a base month by deflating with the BCU's average Unidad Indexada. The verb+resource is precise and understandable. It does not explicitly name the closest sibling (variacion_real) that an agent might confuse it with, so not a 5.

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 final sentence gives the use case ('Sirve para comparar en términos reales pesos de fechas distintas'), which implies when to use it. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether UI must be available for all months), and no named alternative despite variacion_real being a plausible competing tool.

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