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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key validation behavior ('El backend valida que la dirección pertenezca al usuario autenticado') and emphasizes the need for user confirmation, which implies a mutating action. However, it does not explain potential side effects like charges, reversibility, or error responses, which keeps it from a perfect score. Although there is a minor inconsistency (mentions 'frecuencia' which is not in the schema), it does not contradict annotations.

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 moderately concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains four sentences with useful guidance, but could be slightly more compact by merging related instructions. Overall, it earns its length without excessive verbosity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested objects) and lack of output schema, the description provides substantial context: it explains when to use related tools, the confirmation flow, and a backend validation. It does not describe return values, but that is acceptable without an output schema. Minor gaps like not explaining service-type-specific session requirements are covered by the schema descriptions.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that address_id must belong to the user (via validation), and it directs the agent to getServiceCatalog for price info, indirectly informing parameter selection. This goes beyond the schema, justifying a 4.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Crea una orden de servicio' with specific service types (paseo, adiestramiento, guardería, internación). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like createLead and getMyOrders by specifying that it creates an order for the authenticated user. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidelines: it instructs to present a summary and get explicit confirmation before invoking, and names alternative tools (getServiceCatalog, getMyPets, getMyOrders) for related information. It also states when not to invoke ('Si el usuario no confirma de forma inequívoca, no invocar esta tool'). This is strong when-to-use vs. alternative guidance.

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