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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces that with 'does not create or charge anything'. It goes beyond annotations by disclosing two behaviors an agent could not infer: the response includes today's remaining capacity (a volatile, time-sensitive value) and may return a 'needs custom quote' outcome instead of a price.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler. The positive capability is front-loaded and the read-only reassurance is placed second, which is the right order for an agent scanning for purpose first.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does list price, turnaround, capacity and the custom-quote outcome. It is nearly complete; what is missing is any hint of failure modes or how the custom-quote path is followed up (the schema mentions pagar_solicitud, not the description).

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 enum values, the urgente surcharge and the ubicacion semantics are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, which is the expected baseline 3.

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: returns price, turnaround and remaining capacity for a service, and flags the custom-quote branch. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but 'Does not create anything or charge anything' implicitly separates it from solicitar_verificacion and pagar_solicitud.

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 negative clause hints at when to use it (read-only quoting rather than creating or paying), and the custom-quote branch signals when a request should escalate. However, it never states a positive condition like 'call this before pagar_solicitud' or names an alternative tool, so the routing is left to inference.

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