Jefe de equipo (le das un objetivo y reparte el trabajo)

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds real behavioral context: work runs now, store modifications are flagged for the seller's approval, and sin_correr builds a plan from cached knowledge. The one tension is that setting nombre/emoji persists configuration state inside an allegedly read-only tool, which the description does not reconcile.

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 core objective-to-plan behavior, then examples and the naming rules; every sentence carries usable information. It is somewhat long and the naming block is dense, but nothing is 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 output schema, the description correctly carries the return burden, describing the plan's shape (ordered steps, responsible worker, finding, skill) plus the approval marker for store changes. An agent can call this correctly without opening any other artifact.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description still adds meaning the schema lacks: nombre is tied to concrete trigger phrases and the empty-string reset, objetivo is illustrated with examples, and the name-only (no objetivo) invocation pattern is spelled out. emoji and sin_correr get no extra prose beyond the schema.

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 concretely what the tool does: takes a one-sentence objective, picks which workers (ml_trabajadores) are relevant, runs them immediately, and returns an ordered plan with responsible worker, finding and skill. This distinguishes it clearly from the individual worker/metric siblings in the list, and it is not a restatement of the title.

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 explicit invocation conditions with concrete objective examples ('vender más este mes', '¿por qué gano poco?'), the no-objective fallback (runs with the whole team), the naming flow (name-only call, empty string to reset) and the rule that addressing the boss by name counts as an objective. When-to-use vs. alternatives is unambiguous.

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