generar_borrador_cotizacion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool calculates net, tax (19% IVA), gross amounts, and suggests market prices, which is helpful. However, it does not clarify whether the draft is saved temporarily or permanently, if it modifies any state, or what authentication or authorization is required. This leaves notable gaps.

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 two sentences: first sentence defines purpose, second explains key behaviors. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids redundancy. However, the second sentence is somewhat dense, packing three clauses. Minor improvement could split it, but overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, automatic calculations, and fallback behavior. It lacks details on the output structure (JSON format but no shape) and side effects, but these are partially compensated by the schema parameter descriptions. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds overall context (e.g., automatic calculation, market price fallback) but does not provide additional semantics for individual parameters beyond what the schema already offers. For instance, 'precio_unitario_personalizado' is well-described in the schema, and the description only reiterates its effect. Thus no extra value.

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 clearly states the tool generates a structured JSON draft for a formal quotation on an active 'Compra Ágil' call. It uses a specific verb ('genera') and resource ('borrador ... para presentar una cotización formal'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'buscar_compras_agiles' and 'obtener_detalle_compra' by focusing on quotation creation.

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 implies usage for quoting on a Compra Ágil by explaining automatic calculations and market price suggestion, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites. The context is clear but guidance on when-not-to-use is missing.

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