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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so admirably. It discloses that the recipient is a real person, that the message is permanently recorded in the conversation history, that only text is supported, and that user confirmation is mandatory. These are significant behavioral traits that go well beyond the schema and are essential for safe use.

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 four sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second and third establish a critical safety requirement, and the fourth clarifies the media limitation and alternative. There is no fluff or unnecessary repetition, and it is front-loaded with the essential action.

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 (sending a message to a real person) and the absence of annotations or output schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, mandatory confirmation, permanence, human recipient, text-only limitation, and alternative for other media. It provides enough for an agent to use the tool safely and correctly without needing additional structured data.

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% and both parameters already have clear descriptions (exact text, conversation ID from getMyChats). The tool description adds minimal new parameter-level meaning: it reinforces that 'text' must be exactly what the user sees, but this is largely redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Envía un mensaje de texto al cuidador en una conversación existente.' This clearly states the action, target, and context. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getChatMessages (reading) and getMyChats (listing) because it is explicitly about sending.

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 requirements: the assistant must show the exact text and obtain explicit user confirmation before invoking, and must not invoke without unequivocal confirmation. It also specifies an alternative for non-text media ('el usuario debe utilizar la app oficial') and implicitly contrasts with read-only siblings, making when-to-use very clear.

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