waros_estimate

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden of conveying behavior. 'Estimacion WAROS por compra' gives no hint about side effects, whether the tool is read-only, authentication needs, or what side effects occur. It doesn't contradict any annotations because there are none, but it offers essentially no behavioral disclosure for what appears to be a calculation-like operation.

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 three words long with no filler, front-loading the core phrase 'Estimacion WAROS' and appending the scope. It's an efficient use of space given there's almost nothing to it. However, it's so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than careful conciseness.

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 only two parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description should be able to fully specify the tool's use, but it leaves out the return behavior, whether the operation is persistent, and what 'estimate' means. For a low-complexity tool like this, the description is inadequate to allow correct invocation without guessing.

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 50% (total is described, customer_id is not), but the tool description adds zero parameter information. Even though the total field has a description, the description here doesn't confirm the meaning of 'WAROS' (e.g., tax, discount) or clarify what customer_id represents. The description misses a clear opportunity to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 'Estimacion WAROS por compra' is a noun phrase that roughly translates to 'WAROS estimate per purchase,' which conveys the domain and per-transaction scope without a clear action verb. It's a step above a pure tautology because 'por compra' narrows it to a purchase context, but an agent can't tell if this reads, creates, or calculates anything. It does not differentiate from siblings like waros_balances or waros_customer, which could also relate to purchases.

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 mention of when to use this tool versus any alternative. The description does not reference sibling tools, define prerequisites, or state what kind of inputs trigger this operation. An agent would have no way to decide between waros_estimate and waros_customer for a purchase-related task.

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