pagos_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does state that the tool does not process payments or consult personal debt, implying a safe, non-transactional nature. Yet it doesn't explicitly confirm it is read-only, nor does it describe return responses or side effects beyond these exclusions.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the main purpose and includes important limitations. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the simple structure (one param, no output schema), the description covers the tool's scope and exclusions well. However, it lacks explicit instructions on how to use the 'consulta' parameter and what the response looks like, making it incomplete for an agent that needs fully actionable guidance.

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?

The schema has one parameter 'consulta' with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no explanation of what this parameter should contain. The name 'consulta' (query) hints at a free-text question about payments, but this is inferred rather than stated, leaving the agent without adequate guidance for filling the only parameter.

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 explicitly states a specific action ('Orientar' = guide) and a clear resource ('pagos/tasas/tributos'), and differentiates itself from sibling tools like 'reclamos_info' and 'turnos_info'. It also clarifies boundaries (no personal debt, no payment processing), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (guidance on payments/fees/taxes) and explicitly states exclusions (not for personal debt, not for payment processing). However, it does not name alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of explicit 'use X instead' guidance.

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