recomendar_precio_ganador

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions parallel queries limited by rate limiter, which is helpful. But it does not state whether the tool is read-only (likely safe), what side effects exist, or any authentication requirements. More details on behavior are missing.

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?

Description is concise, with two short paragraphs. Main purpose is front-loaded. Could be slightly more compact, but no unnecessary sentences. The note about rate limiter is relevant.

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?

The description does not explain what the tool returns (output format) and there is no output schema. For a tool with 4 parameters and no required fields, the lack of return value information is a gap. However, the context about using historical data and the rate limiter is complete enough for basic usage.

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 covers all 4 parameters with descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it explains the purpose of the tool but doesn't elaborate on how parameters are used in the analysis. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 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?

Description clearly states the function: analyzing historical closed Compra Ágil processes to recommend an optimal unit or total price for bidding. The verb 'analiza' and resource 'procesos históricos' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'auditar_compras_desiertas' (which audits deserted processes) and 'buscar_compras_agiles' (which searches for active processes).

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?

Description explains when to use: for estimating a competitive price before bidding. It provides input alternatives (codigo_compra or q) and notes the parameter 'limite_analisis' to control API quota. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with sibling tools.

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