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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly warns that this is a REAL request, that the business gets notified, and that they may call the customer's phone — important side effects beyond a mere form submission. It does not detail response behavior or failure modes, but the real-world impact is disclosed.

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 a single bilingual sentence, front-loaded with the core action and key qualifiers. It conveys purpose, target audience, and real-world effect without padding or redundancy.

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 7-parameter schema with full descriptions and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: what the tool does, who receives the request, and the real-world consequence. It is not overly verbose, though it could mention what happens after submission or whether confirmation is returned.

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 explains each parameter clearly, including the phone purpose and where the slug comes from. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond emphasizing the real notification and phone callback, which is already echoed in the schema.

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 action, resource, and scope: sending a real estimate request to a services business, with examples of eligible contractor types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like reservar_cita and solicitar_visita_inmobiliaria by focusing specifically on service estimates.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when a customer needs an estimate from a services/contractor business. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the domain and action are specific enough to avoid obvious misuse alongside the sibling tools.

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