comparar_ofertas

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

Annotations cover readOnly and openWorld, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by describing what comes back (offers sorted by price, multi-year analysis covering offer rotation, permanencias, fixed vs. time-band pricing). It does not address errors, auth, or latency, which keeps it out of the top band.

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 tight sentences that front-load the purpose and then the minimum-input rule; no filler. The parenthetical feature list is dense but every item earns its place.

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 12-parameter tool with no required fields and no output schema, the description usefully explains the return content and the two minimal input paths. Remaining gaps (gas-only behavior, defaults for potencia/consumo, error handling) are minor against the 92% schema coverage.

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 coverage is 92%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter. The description reinforces the QR-vs-cp+consumo choice and links the multi-year view to 'anios', but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specifies the verb and resource precisely ('Consulta el comparador oficial de la CNMC y devuelve las ofertas de luz y/o gas ordenadas por precio') and names the analysis scope. It does not explicitly contrast with the invoice-reading siblings, but the purpose is unmistakably different.

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?

States the two viable invocation modes ('Basta el QR de una factura, o código postal + consumo anual'), which tells the agent the minimum inputs needed given that no parameter is required. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions.

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