waros_customer

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

With no annotations provided, the description shoulders the full disclosure burden but reveals almost nothing behavioral: 'Resumen' (summary) weakly implies a read-only aggregate operation, but the tool never clarifies what happens on invoke, whether authentication is required, what WAROS data means, or the output shape. Barely better than a tautology, and the read-only implication is the only positive signal.

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?

Brevity without substance is under-specification, not efficiency. Like the 'Process' calibration example, this fragment is short because it stops at labeling the tool rather than adding value, so there is no front-loaded insight an agent couldn't derive from the tool name alone.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves critical gaps: no definition of WAROS, no return-value description, no guidance on the 'fields' parameter, and no differentiation from 26 siblings. The missing output schema and annotations make the terse description even more costly—an agent does not have enough to call this tool correctly with confidence.

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 0%, so the burden falls on the description, which provides only marginal help: 'de un cliente' suggests profile_id identifies the customer, but the optional 'fields' parameter is entirely unexplained (comma-separated? array encoded as string?) and its effect on the response is a mystery. The description fails to compensate for the empty schema documentation.

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 six-word Spanish description 'Resumen WAROS de un cliente' (WAROS summary of a customer) names a specific resource and scope, letting an agent infer this returns a customer's WAROS summary. However, 'WAROS' is unexplained jargon, the phrase is a verbless noun fragment, and it doesn't differentiate from siblings analytics_waros, waros_estimate, and waros_balances, all of which touch the same concept.

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?

There is no guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool versus the three other 'waros'-named siblings or analytics_waros. Unlike the get_calls example, which routes agents to its alternative ('use search_calls_extensive instead'), this description provides no context for selecting between closely related tools.

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