comparar_servicio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does substantial work: it discloses the grouping rule (category + inclusion indicators + unit), that the response warns when multiple groups exist and their figures must not be mixed, that PDF-sourced prices exist and only carry a year, that duplicates are collapsed via `aplica_a`, and that unpriced services are returned separately with `resuelto_en`. It stops short of any mention of access requirements or result-size limits, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then layered constraints, then source/format caveats; each paragraph covers a distinct concern and there is little filler. It is on the long side, but the length is buying real behavioral detail rather than restating the name.

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 the description is not obliged to define return values, and its references to `aplica_a`, `resuelto_en` and the multi-group warning are coherent with that. The gap is on the input side: for a 6-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, four filter parameters remain undefined, which is the one thing an agent would most need before calling 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 description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and it largely does not: it explains only `detallar_aplicacion` (true adds the detail list). `operador`, `producto`, `comunidad` and `tipo_instalacion` are never addressed — their filtering behavior, whether they are exact or partial matches, and whether they are combinable are all left to inference from param names alone.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Compara el precio de una categoría de servicio entre instalaciones y operadores'), so the agent knows this is a cross-facility/operator price comparison, not a search or a single-record lookup. It does not name any sibling (e.g. buscar_precios or precios_origen_destino) to draw the boundary explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the domain: the tool is for comparing a service category across installations and operators, and the description adds the important constraint that only same-group prices are comparable. However, it never says when to prefer this over the other price-related siblings, nor does it state prerequisites (e.g. that a category must already exist in the catalog).

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