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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the confirmation gate and the backend validation that the address must belong to the authenticated user. It does not cover side effects such as payment capture, notification to the caregiver, or idempotency/retry behavior, which matters for a create 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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then moves to the confirmation requirement and prerequisite tools. Dense but every sentence earns its place; slight redundancy between the summary-field list and the schema.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the missing operational context: the human-confirmation gate, prerequisite reads, and backend address validation. What remains unstated is the outcome shape and payment/side-effect semantics, which the absent output schema forces it to leave implicit.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, including the service-type mapping, date formats, and required shift/breed IDs. The description adds the cross-tool provenance for some of these (getServiceCatalog, getMyPets) but no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Crea una orden de servicio') and enumerates the service domain (paseo, adiestramiento, guardería, internación), matching the enum values in pcp_service_type_id. It also names the sibling tools involved (getServiceCatalog, getMyPets, getMyOrders), so an agent can place it precisely among the 13 siblings.

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 an explicit pre-invocation protocol: present a summary (service type, frequency, start date, address, dog, indicative price) and obtain explicit confirmation, with an explicit when-not ('si el usuario no confirma de forma inequívoca, no invocar'). It also routes to the right prerequisite tools for prices, pets, and existing orders.

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