Variación real descontando la inflación

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains what is returned (nominal variation, period inflation, real variation, and final-month equivalent value) and maps each index to a currency. It does not discuss data availability limitations or source freshness, which would be needed for 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. It moves efficiently from the operation to index mapping to returned fields. Every sentence contributes useful information, though it could be slightly tighter.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so the description does not need to exhaustively explain return values, but it still helpfully summarizes them. Given the 5 parameters and multiple inflation indices, the description provides enough information to invoke the tool correctly. It is missing explicit guidance about sibling alternatives and data coverage or freshness caveats.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It explains the `indice` enum values and their currencies (UI for Uruguay, IPC_AR for Argentina, IPCA_BR for Brazil), specifies the month format as AAAA-MM, and clarifies the monetary comparison. It does not explicitly describe every parameter or mention that `indice` defaults to UI, but it compensates well for most semantic gaps.

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 operation: calculates the nominal and real change of an amount between two months, including sales, prices, salaries, or rent. It clearly identifies what the tool computes and mentions the inflation indices it supports. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from a related sibling such as `pesos_constantes`, so it falls short of 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 description gives example use cases (sales, prices, salaries, rent), which implies when the tool is useful. However, it does not say when to use this tool instead of alternatives like `pesos_constantes`, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not explicitly guided.

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