Conteo local del día UTC

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

With readOnlyHint/openWorldHint already covering safety, the description adds substantial context beyond structured data: it is a LOCAL count, not the official leftover quota, the ticket may be shared with other tools/teams, and it also surfaces process-scoped latency and per-tool errors. That is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 primary purpose and the caveat block is clearly flagged with 'IMPORTANTE'. Slightly verbose, but every sentence carries interpretive value (local vs official, quota sharing, latency/error reporting) rather than filler.

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?

With no params, no output schema, and low-complexity annotations, the description fully describes what is reported: daily query count, 429 status, and process-scoped latency, errors per tool, and API result categories (cache, 504, 429, timeouts). Nothing an agent needs is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify. No param semantics are needed or missing.

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 verb (informa/cuenta) and resource (consultas a la API en el día UTC, más latencia y errores por herramienta). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the official ticket balance, which is a key sibling concept (verificar_ticket). An agent can tell exactly what this returns without opening anything else.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use contexts: 'Sirve para moderar el gasto' and 'úsalo para saber si la API está lenta o caída antes de lanzar un análisis largo.' It also cautions that the count is local and not authoritative, effectively saying when not to rely on it. It stops short of naming the sibling (verificar_ticket) to use for the official balance.

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